U.S. patent number 10,664,233 [Application Number 16/575,461] was granted by the patent office on 2020-05-26 for mechanical computing systems.
This patent grant is currently assigned to CBN Nano Technologies Inc.. The grantee listed for this patent is CBN Nano Technologies Inc.. Invention is credited to Robert A. Freitas, Jr., Tad Hogg, Ralph C. Merkle, Matthew Moses, James Ryley.
View All Diagrams
United States Patent |
10,664,233 |
Merkle , et al. |
May 26, 2020 |
Mechanical computing systems
Abstract
Systems and methods are disclosed for creating mechanical
computing mechanisms and Turing-complete systems which include
combinatorial logic and sequential logic, and which are
energy-efficient.
Inventors: |
Merkle; Ralph C. (Santa Clara,
CA), Freitas, Jr.; Robert A. (Pilot Hill, CA), Ryley;
James (Downey, CA), Moses; Matthew (Lafayette, CO),
Hogg; Tad (Mountain View, CA) |
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
CBN Nano Technologies Inc. |
Ottawa |
N/A |
CA |
|
|
Assignee: |
CBN Nano Technologies Inc.
(Ottawa, CA)
|
Family
ID: |
59226328 |
Appl.
No.: |
16/575,461 |
Filed: |
September 19, 2019 |
Prior Publication Data
|
|
|
|
Document
Identifier |
Publication Date |
|
US 20200012478 A1 |
Jan 9, 2020 |
|
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
Issue Date |
|
|
14986568 |
Dec 31, 2015 |
10481866 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
1/1 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F
5/01 (20130101); H03K 19/20 (20130101); G06F
7/388 (20130101); H01B 3/307 (20130101); H01B
3/18 (20130101) |
Current International
Class: |
G06F
5/01 (20060101); H03K 19/20 (20060101); H01B
3/18 (20060101); G06F 7/38 (20060101); H01B
3/30 (20060101) |
References Cited
[Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
Other References
R Merkle. Two Types of Mechanical Reversible Logic. Nanotechnology.
(1990) vol. 4, pp. 114-131. cited by applicant .
Athas, Koller, Tzartzanis, & Chou. Low-Power Digital Systems
Based on Adiabatic-Switching Principles. IEEE Transactions on Very
Large Scale Integration (VLlSI) Systems. (1994) vol. 2, pp.
398-407. cited by applicant .
Axelsen & Gluck. A Simpe and Efficient Universal Reversible
Turring Machine. (2011) vol. 2018: DIKU, Dept. of Computer Science,
University of Copenhagen. cited by applicant .
CH Bennett. Logical reversibility of computation. IBM Journal of
Research and Development. (1973) vol. 17, pp. 525-532. cited by
applicant .
Charles Bennett. The Thermodynamics of Computation: A Review.
International Journal of Theoretical Physics. (1982) vol. 21, pp.
905-940. cited by applicant .
Charles Bennett & Landauer. The Fundamental Physical Limits of
Computation. Scientific American. (1985). cited by applicant .
Berut et al. Experimental verification of Landauer's principle
linking information and thermodynamics. Nature. (2012) vol. 483,
pp. 187-189: Nature Publishing Group. cited by applicant .
Boruah & Dutta. DNA Computing Models for Boolean Circuits and
Logic Gates. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computational
Intelligence & Communication Technology. (2015) pp. 529-533.
cited by applicant .
Bradley. Mechanical Computing in Microelectromechanical Systems
(MSMS). Air Force Institute of Technology. (2003) pp. 172. Ohio.
cited by applicant .
Bray & Duke. Conformational spread: the propagation of
allosteric states in large multiprotein complexes. Annu Rev Biophys
Biomol Struct. (2004) vol. 33, pp. 53-73. cited by applicant .
Buck. The Cryotron--a superconductive computer component.
Proceedings of the IRE. (1956) vol. 44, pp. 482-493. cited by
applicant .
Chowdhury. Micro-Electro-Mechanical-Systems-Based Single-Device
Digital Logic Gates for Harsh Environment Applications. Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering. (2013) vol. Ph.D., pp. 170:
The University of Utah. cited by applicant .
Debenedicitis. Reversible Logic for Supercomputing. ACM. (2005).
cited by applicant .
Drexler. Nanomechanical Computation Systems. Nanosystems Molecular
Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. (1992) pp. 342-371. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. cited by applicant .
Ekinci & Roukes. Nanoelectromechanical systems. Review of
Scientific Instruments. (2005) vol. 76, pp. 061101. cited by
applicant .
Feynman. Quantum Mechanical Computers. Foundations of Physics.
(1986) vol. 16, pp. 507-531. cited by applicant .
Forrest. Integrated nanosystems for Atomically Precise
Manufacturing. U. S. D. o. Energy (Ed.). (2015). Berkely, CA, US.
cited by applicant .
Frank. Introduction to Reversible Computing: Motivation, Progress,
and Challenges. Second Conference on Computing Frontiers. (2005)
pp. 385-390. Tallahassee, FL, US. cited by applicant .
Frantz, Baldridge, & Siegel. Application of Structural
Principles to the Design of Triptycene-Based Molecular Gears with
Parallel Axes. CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry. (2009)
vol. 63, pp. 201-204. cited by applicant .
Gosselin & Angeles. Singularity analysis of closed-loop
kinematic chains. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation.
(1990) vol. 6, pp. 281-290. cited by applicant .
Hall. Nanocomputers and Reversible Logic. Nanotechnology. (1994)
vol. 5, pp. 157-167. cited by applicant .
Han, Globus, Jaffe, & Deardorff. Molecular dynamics simulations
of carbon nanotube-based gears. Nanotechnology. (1997) vol. 8, pp.
95-102. cited by applicant .
Heinrich, Lutz, Gupta, & Eigler. Molecule Cascades. Science.
(2002) vol. 298, pp. 1381-1387. cited by applicant .
Isobe, Hitosugi, Yamasaki, & Iizuka. Molecular bearings of
finite carbon nanotubes and fullerenes in ensemble rolling motion.
Chemical Science. (2013) vol. 4, pp. 1293. cited by applicant .
Kam, Liu, Stojanovi, Markovic, & Alon. Design, Optimization,
and Scaling of MEM Relays for Ultra-Low-Power Digital Logic. IEEE
Transactions on Electron Devices. (2011) vol. 58, pp. 236-250.
cited by applicant .
Khuong, Dang, Jarowski, Maverick, & Garcia-Garibay. Rotational
dynamics in a crystalline molecular gyroscope by
variable-temperature 13C NMR, 2H NMR, X-ray diffraction, and force
field calculations. J Am Chem Soc. (2007) vol. 129, pp. 839-845.
cited by applicant .
Kottas, Clarke, Horinek, & Michl. Artificial Molecular Rotors.
Chem. Rev. (2005) vol. 105, pp. 1281-1376. cited by applicant .
Landaur. Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing
Process. IBM Journal of Research and Development. (1961). cited by
applicant .
Mahboob, Nishiguchi, Fujiwara, & Yamaguchi. Interconnect-free
parallel logic circuits in a single mechanical resonator. Nature
Communications. (2011) vol. 2, pp. 198. cited by applicant .
Manzano et al. Step-by-step rotation of a molecule-gear mounted on
an atomic-scale axis. Nature Materials. (2009) vol. 8, pp. 576:
Nature Publishing Group. cited by applicant .
R. C. Merkle. Reversible Logic. R. C. Merkle (Ed.), Nanotechnology.
(2007) vol. 2007, pp. Summary of resources on reversible logic:
Zyvex. cited by applicant .
Modi et al. Design, Analysis and Fabrication of a Microflexural and
Gate. 13th National Conference on Mechanisms and Machines
(NaCoMM07). (2007). Bangalore, India. cited by applicant .
Moon & Jeong. An efficient charge recovery logic circuit. IEEE
Journal of Solid-State Circuits. (1996) vol. 31, pp. 514-522. cited
by applicant .
Okamoto, Tanaka, & Saito. DNA Logic Gates. J Am Chem Soc.
(2004) vol. 126, pp. 9458-9463. cited by applicant .
Orbach, Remacle, Levine, & Willner. Logic reversibility and
thermodynamic irreversibility demonstrated by DNAzyme-based Toffoli
and Fredkin logic gates. PNAS. (2012) vol. 109, pp. 21228-21233.
cited by applicant .
Park & Kim. Singularity Analysis of Closed Kinematic Chains.
Journal of Mechanical Design. (1999) vol. 121, pp. 32-38. cited by
applicant .
Plummer & Greenwood. The history of Nuclear Weapon Safety
Devices. S. n. Laboratories (Ed.). (1998). Albuquerque, NM, US.
cited by applicant .
Reif. Mechanical Computing: The Computational Complexity of
Physical Devices. R. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Complexity and
System Science. (2009) pp. 5466-5482: Springer-Verlag. cited by
applicant .
Remon et al. Reversible molecular logic: a photophysical example of
a Feynman gate. Chemphyschem. (2009) vol. 10, pp. 2004-2007. cited
by applicant .
Roukes. Mechanical Computing, Redux? Electron Devices Meeting, IEDM
Technical Digest. (2004) vol. 13-15 Dec. 2004, pp. 539-542. cited
by applicant .
Roy, Sethi, Topolancik, & Vollmer. All-Optical Reversible Logic
Gates with Optically Controlled Bacteriorhodopsin Protein-Coated
Microresonators. Advances in Optical Technologies. (2012) vol.
2012, pp. 1-12. cited by applicant .
Sharma, Ram, & Amarnath. Mechanical Logic Devices and Circuits.
14th National Conference on Machines and Mechanisms (NaCoMM-09).
(2009) pp. 235-239. cited by applicant .
Skakoon. There's the Rub. Mechanical Engineering. (2009) vol. 131,
pp. 41-45. New York: Springer. cited by applicant .
Svoboda. Computing Mechanisms and Linkages. H. James (Ed.). (1965)
pp. 359. New York: Dover Publications. cited by applicant .
Toffoli. Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-151--Reversible Computing.
Automata, Languages and Programming, Seventh Colloquium. (1980) pp.
632-644. Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands: Springer Verlag. cited by
applicant .
Toffoli & Fredkin. Conservative Logic. International Jounral of
Theoretical Physics. (1982) vol. 21, pp. 219-253. cited by
applicant .
Touretzky. Building the Pascaline: Digital Computing Like It's
1642. (2015). pittsburg, PA, US: Computer Sicence Department,
Carnagie Mellon University. cited by applicant .
Wang, Liu, Zhang, Guo, & Gao. Molecular Rotors Observed by
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy. W. Zhou & Z. Wang (Eds.),
Three-Dimensional Nanoarchitectures. (2011) pp. 287-316. cited by
applicant .
Wenzler, Dunn, Toffoli, & Mohanty. A nanomechanical Fredkin
gate. Nano Lett. (2014), Dec. 18, 2013 ed., vol. 14, pp. 89-93.
cited by applicant.
|
Primary Examiner: Walsh; Daniel I
Parent Case Text
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
The present application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser.
No. 14/986,568 filed 2015 Dec. 31, and incorporated herein by
reference.
Claims
The invention claimed is:
1. A computing mechanism comprising: an anchor block; and a
plurality of logic structures mounted to said anchor block, each of
said logic structures having an arrangement of primitives selected
from the group consisting of rigid links, pulleys, cables, and
knobs, and being movably connected to said anchor block by joints
selected from the group consisting of rotary joints and flexures,
each of said logic structures being configured to define a position
of at least one output based on a logic operation performed on at
least one input, where the logic operation includes at least one of
a combinatorial logic function or a sequential logic function,
wherein said logic structures are connected together such that
outputs from one subset of logic structures serve to define the
inputs of another subset of logic structures, wherein each of said
logic structures further comprises: one or more moveable input
primitives that provide said inputs and one or more moveable output
primitives that provide said outputs, wherein discrete positions of
said input and output primitives represent integer values; and
internal connecting primitives arranged to connect said input
primitives to said output primitives such that the positions of at
least a subset of said output primitives are defined by a logic
operation of at least a subset of said input primitives, wherein
the computing mechanism is operated by a clock comprising at least
one of links and rotary joints, springs and masses, or cams and cam
followers, and wherein at least a subset of said logic structures
are configured such that non-trivial storage and release of
potential energy resulting from operation only occurs at a speed
imposed by the clock, wherein at least a subset of said logic
structures are each constructed from a plurality of locks and
balances connected so as to perform a desired operation, each
balance having a movable balance actuating element and a plurality
of movable balance driven elements which move when said balance
actuating element moves, unless blocked from such movement, and
said locks being connected to said balance driven elements and
configured such that the positions of lock input elements determine
which of said balance driven elements are blocked from moving when
said balance actuating element moves.
2. The computing mechanism of claim 1 wherein at least a subset of
said logic structures are configured such that the pattern of
connection between primitives in such logic structures remains
constant as they operate.
3. The computing mechanism of claim 1 wherein at least a subset of
said logic structures are configured such that they do not require
storage or release of non-trivial amounts of potential energy as
they operate.
4. The computing mechanism of claim 1 wherein at least a subset of
said logic structures are configured to provide reversible logic
gates.
5. The computing mechanism of claim 1 wherein at least a subset of
said logic structures are configured such that operation does not
require transmitting force to any part that is not free to move
responsive to such force.
6. A computing mechanism operated by a clock and comprising: an
anchor block; and a plurality of logic structures mounted to said
anchor block, each of said logic structures being configured to
define a position of at least one output based on a logic operation
performed on at least one input, where the logic operation includes
at least one of a combinatorial logic function and a sequential
logic function, and being configured such that the pattern of
connection between primitives remains constant as said logic
structure operates, wherein said logic structures are connected
together such that outputs from one subset of logic structures
serve to define the inputs of another subset of logic structures,
wherein each of said logic structures further comprises: one or
more moveable input primitives that provide said inputs and one or
more moveable output primitives that provide said outputs, wherein
discrete positions of said input and output primitives represent
integer values; and internal connecting primitives arranged to
connect said input primitives to said output primitives such that
the positions of at least a subset of said output primitives are
defined by a logic operation of at least a subset of said input
primitives, wherein at least a subset of said logic structures are
each constructed from a plurality of locks and balances connected
so as to perform a desired operation, each balance having a movable
balance actuating element and a plurality of movable balance driven
elements which move when said balance actuating element moves,
unless blocked from such movement, and said locks being connected
to said balance driven elements and configured such that the
positions of lock input elements determine which of said balance
driven elements are blocked from moving when said balance actuating
element moves, and wherein at least a subset of said logic
structures are configured such that non-trivial storage and release
of potential energy resulting from operation only occurs at a speed
imposed by a clock comprising at least one of links and rotary
joints, springs and masses, or cams and cam followers.
7. The computing mechanism of claim 6 wherein at least a subset of
said logic structures are configured such that they do not require
storage or release of non-trivial amounts of potential energy as
they operate.
8. The computing mechanism of claim 6 wherein at least a subset of
said logic structures are configured to provide reversible logic
gates.
9. The computing mechanism of claim 6 wherein at least a subset of
said logic structures are configured such that operation does not
require transmitting force to any part that is not free to move
responsive to such force.
10. A computing mechanism comprising: an anchor block; and a
plurality of logic structures mounted to said anchor block, each of
said logic structures being configured to define a position of at
least one output based on a logic operation performed on at least
one input, where the logic operation includes at least one of a
combinatorial logic function and a sequential logic function,
wherein said logic structures are connected together such that
outputs from one subset of logic structures serve to define the
inputs of another subset of logic structures, wherein each of said
logic structures further comprises: one or more moveable input
primitives that provide said inputs and one or more moveable output
primitives that provide said outputs, wherein discrete positions of
said input and output primitives represent integer values; and
internal connecting primitives arranged to connect said input
primitives to said output primitives such that the positions of at
least a subset of said output primitives are defined by a logic
operation of at least a subset of said input primitives, wherein at
least a subset of said logic structures are each constructed from a
plurality of locks and balances connected so as to perform a
desired operation, each balance having a movable balance actuating
element and a plurality of movable balance driven elements which
move when said balance actuating element moves, unless blocked from
such movement, and said locks being connected to said balance
driven elements and configured such that the positions of lock
input elements determine which of said balance driven elements are
blocked from moving when said balance actuating element moves,
wherein the computing mechanism is operated by a clock, wherein at
least a subset of said logic structures are configured such that
non-trivial storage and release of potential energy resulting from
operation only occurs at a speed imposed by the clock which
comprises at least one of links and rotary joints, springs and
masses, or cams and cam followers, and further wherein at least a
subset of said logic structures are configured such that they do
not require storage or release of non-trivial amounts of potential
energy as they operate.
11. The computing mechanism of claim 10 wherein at least a subset
of said logic structures are configured to provide reversible logic
gates.
12. The computing mechanism of claim 10 wherein at least a subset
of said logic structures are configured such that operation does
not require transmitting force to any part that is not free to move
responsive to such force.
13. A computing mechanism comprising: an anchor block; and a
plurality of logic structures mounted to said anchor block, each of
said logic structures being configured to define a position of at
least one output based on a logic operation performed on at least
one input, where the logic operation includes at least one of a
combinatorial logic function and a sequential logic function, said
logic structures each being constructed from a plurality of locks
and balances connected so as to perform said operation, each
balance having a movable balance actuating element and a plurality
of movable balance driven elements which move when said balance
actuating element moves, unless blocked from such movement, and
said locks being connected to said balance driven elements and
configured such that the positions of lock input elements determine
which of said balance driven elements are blocked from moving when
said balance actuating element moves, wherein said logic structures
are connected together such that outputs from one subset of logic
structures serve to define the inputs of another subset of logic
structures, wherein each of said logic structures further
comprises: one or more moveable input primitives that provide said
inputs and one or more moveable output primitives that provide said
outputs, wherein discrete positions of said input and output
primitives represent integer values; and internal connecting
primitives arranged to connect said input primitives to said output
primitives such that the positions of at least a subset of said
output primitives are defined by a logic operation of at least a
subset of said input primitive, wherein at least a subset of said
logic structures are configured such that non-trivial storage and
release of potential energy resulting from operation only occurs at
a speed imposed by a clock comprising at least one of links and
rotary joints, springs and masses, or cams and cam followers that
operates the computing mechanism.
14. The computing mechanism of claim 13 wherein at least a subset
of said logic structures are configured to provide reversible logic
gates.
Description
FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH
Not applicable.
SEQUENCE LISTING OR PROGRAM
Not applicable.
FIELD OF INVENTION
The present invention relates to the field of computer technology
or computer systems relating to general purpose devices that can be
programmed to carry out a set of arithmetic or logical operations.
More specifically, the present invention is directed to mechanical
computing, wherein a mechanical computer is built from mechanical
components rather than electronic components.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Methods for mechanical computation are well-known in the prior art.
(Svoboda, "Computing Mechanisms and Linkages," New York, Dover
Publications, 1965; Bradley, "Mechanical Computing in
Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS)," AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, AFIT/GE/ENG/03-04, Ohio, 2003; Sharma, Ram et al.,
"Mechanical Logic Devices and Circuits," 14th National Conference
on Machines and Mechanisms (NaCoMM-09), 2009) However, while the
earliest example of a Turing-complete design is probably Babbage's
Analytical Engine, which was described in 1837 (although never
built), the vast majority of previous proposals for mechanical
computing are not Turing-complete systems. Rather, they are either
special-purpose devices not intended to address general-purpose
computing at all, or they are partial systems or mechanisms,
lacking crucial capabilities which would allow them to provide
Turing-complete systems. For example, with respect to partial
systems or mechanisms, known examples include logic gates built
from custom parts, kits, or even toys like Lego. Note that
mechanical logic gates alone, even universal ones, do not by
themselves permit Turing-complete computing; some memory means is
also required. Turing-complete computing requires a means for
combinatorial logic, as well as a means for sequential logic.
The mechanical computing literature also includes molecular-scale
implementations of various computational components (again, often
not Turing-complete systems), including (Drexler, "Nanosystems:
Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation," New York,
John Wiley & Sons, 1992; Hall, "Nanocomputers and Reversible
Logic," Nanotechnology, 1994; Heinrich, Lutz et al., "Molecule
Cascades," Science, 2002; Remon, Ferreira et al., "Reversible
molecular logic: a photophysical example of a Feynman gate,"
Chemphyschem, 12, 2009; Orbach, Remacle et al., "Logic
reversibility and thermodynamic irreversibility demonstrated by
DNAzyme-based Toffoli and Fredkin logic gates," PNAS, 52, 2012;
Roy, Sethi et al., "All-Optical Reversible Logic Gates with
Optically Controlled Bacteriorhodopsin Protein-Coated
Microresonators," Advances in Optical Technologies, 2012).
While previous designs for mechanical computing vary greatly,
previous proposals capable of Turing-complete computing (as opposed
to limited-purpose devices) tend to reply upon a substantial number
of basic parts (or "primitives") including various types of gears,
linear motion shafts and bearings, springs (or other energy-storing
means, e.g., some designs use rubber bands), detents, ratchets and
pawls, or other mechanisms which have the potential to be
energy-dissipative, as well as increasing the complexity of the
device. Note that such designs require these various primitives to
function properly; they are not optional.
That the use of many types of basic parts in a mechanical system
can complicate design, manufacture, and assembly, as well as
potentially reducing reliability, is obvious. Reducing the
complexity of mechanisms is a common inventive goal.
Note also that many of the mechanisms used in previous proposals
for mechanical computing generate substantial friction. Removing
such mechanisms would have benefits beyond reducing device
complexity, including reduced energy expenditure. However, judged
by the prevalence of friction-generating mechanisms in mechanical
computing systems, it is difficult to design around this issue.
Perhaps less evident than friction are other modes of energy
dissipation, including vibrations, which may, e.g., create heat, or
generate acoustic radiation. For example, ratchets and pawls,
detents, or other mechanisms which involve the relatively
uncontrolled impact of one piece of a mechanism upon another can
lead to energy-dissipating vibrations, and so the removal of these
types of mechanisms would also have benefit.
Waste heat is a well-known issue for computational systems,
electronic or mechanical, which dissipate far more energy per bit
operation than is required in theory. In theory, computations can
be performed where the energy dissipated is only ln(2) k.sub.BT per
irreversible bit operation. This is called the Landauer Limit
(Landauer, "Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing
Process," IBM Journal of Research and Development, 1961) and has
been confirmed experimentally (Berut, Arakelyan et al.,
"Experimental verification of Landauer's principle linking
information and thermodynamics," Nature, 7388, Nature Publishing
Group, 2012).
Note that the Landauer Limit only applies to irreversible
operations. Reversible operations can, in theory, dissipate zero
energy. While conventional computers are generally not built upon
reversible hardware, reversible computing has been studied for
decades (Landauer, "Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the
Computing Process," IBM Journal of Research and Development, 1961;
Bennett, "The Thermodynamics Of Computation," International Journal
of Theoretical Physics, 12, 1973; "Logical reversibility of
computation," IBM Journal of Research and Development, 6, 1973;
Toffoli, "Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-151--Reversible Computing,"
Automata, Languages and Programming, Seventh Colloquium,
Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, Springer Verlag, 1980; Toffoli and
Fredkin, "Conservative Computing," International Jounral of
Theoretical Physics, 3/4, 1982; Bennett and Landauer, "The
Fundamental Physical Limits of Computation," Scientific American,
1985; Feynman, "Quantum Mechanical Computers," Foundations of
Physics, 6, 1986). For a general overview of reversible computing
from a software perspective, see (Perumalla, "Introduction to
Reversible Computing," CRC Press, 2014).
Whether reversible or irreversible, novel designs for mechanical
computational systems that have the potential to reduce device
complexity (along with the associated design, manufacturing and
assembly costs) and use less energy per bit operation than existing
designs, would be quite useful. Not being subject to the Landauer
Limit, reversible designs have the potential to ultimately use the
least energy. However, existing computing systems use energy so far
in excess of the Landauer Limit that even irreversible designs
could greatly improve upon the state of the art.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Embodiments of the invention include mechanical computing
mechanisms and computational systems which have lower energy
dissipation, a smaller number of basic parts, and other advantages
over previous systems. Multiple embodiments are disclosed including
mechanical link logic, mechanical flexure logic, and mechanical
cable logic, along with design paradigms (including both mechanical
designs, principles, and a novel classification system which
categorizes systems as Types 1 through 4) that teach how to apply
the general principles to other embodiments.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
For a more complete understanding of the present invention,
reference is now made to the following descriptions taken in
conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
FIG. 1 depicts a side view of a molecular rotary joint.
FIG. 2 depicts a side view of a four-bar linkage.
FIG. 3 depicts a top view of a mechanism which can serve as the
basis for a NAND or AND gate.
FIG. 4 depicts a top view of a mechanism which can serve as the
basis for a NOR, NAND, AND, or OR gate.
FIG. 5 depicts a top view of a XOR gate.
FIG. 6 depicts a top view of a Fredkin gate.
FIG. 7 depicts a top view of a co-planar lock in the (0,0)
state.
FIG. 8 depicts a top view of a co-planar lock in the (1,0)
state.
FIG. 9 depicts a top view of an alternate embodiment of a co-planar
lock in the (0,0) state.
FIG. 10 depicts a top view of an alternate embodiment of a
co-planar lock in the (1,0) state
FIG. 11 depicts a 3/4 view of a non-co-planar lock in the (0,0)
state.
FIG. 12 depicts a top view of a non-co-planar lock in the (0,0)
state.
FIG. 13 depicts a 3/4 view of a non-co-planar lock in the (1,0)
state.
FIG. 14 depicts a top view of a non-co-planar lock in the (1,0)
state.
FIG. 15 depicts a 3/4 view of a non-co-planar lock in the (0,1)
state.
FIG. 16 depicts a top view of a non-co-planar lock in the (0,1)
state.
FIG. 17 depicts a top view of a balance with an input of 0.
FIG. 18 depicts a top view of a balance with an input of 1 with an
anchor at the top.
FIG. 19 depicts a top view of a balance with an input of 1 with an
anchor at the bottom.
FIG. 20 depicts a top view of a binary double balance with inputs
(1,0).
FIG. 21 depicts a top view of a binary double balance with inputs
(1,1).
FIG. 22 depicts a top view of a switch gate.
FIG. 23 depicts a top view of a lock and balance-based NAND
gate.
FIG. 24 depicts a top view of a lock and balance-based Fredkin
gate.
FIG. 25 depicts a top view of a shift register cell in its blank
state.
FIG. 26 depicts a top view of a shift register cell after input has
been provided but before a clock signal is set to high.
FIG. 27 depicts a top view of a shift register cell after input has
been provided and a clock signal has been set to high.
FIG. 28a depicts a top view of the left half of a two-cell
shift-register.
FIG. 28b depicts a top view of the right half of a two-cell
shift-register.
FIG. 29 depicts a top view of a canceling group.
FIG. 30 depicts a top view of a flexure-based lock.
FIG. 31 depicts a top view of an MCL pulley and associated
mechanisms.
FIG. 32 depicts a side view of an MCL pulley and associated
mechanisms.
FIG. 33a-FIG. 33c depict top views of various states of one
embodiment of an MCL lock.
FIG. 34 depicts a 3/4 view of a knob which can be used to create a
lock.
FIG. 35 depicts a 3/4 view of two knobs forming a lock in the (0,0)
state.
FIG. 36 depicts a 3/4 view of a lock in the (0,1) state.
FIG. 37 depicts a 3/4 view of a lock in the (1,0) state.
FIG. 38 depicts a top view of an MCL oval.
FIG. 39 depicts a top view of an MCL balance in the (0,0)
state.
FIG. 40 depicts a top view of an MCL balance in the (0,1)
state.
FIG. 41 depicts a top view of an MCL balance in the (1,0)
state.
FIG. 42 depicts a top view of an MCL balance in the (1,0) state
after actuation.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Definitions
The following definitions are used herein:
"Anchor block" means one or more rigid structures to which basic
parts or higher-level assemblies can be attached, and which may
also serve as heat sinks. Note that even when written in the
singular, there may be more than one anchor block, as design needs
dictate. The shape of an anchor block can be arbitrary ("block"
should not be taken to mean that the structure is necessarily
rectangular, or any simple shape). An anchor block can be made from
any appropriate material, not limited to, but including any of the
materials suggested herein from which basic parts could be made. An
anchor block is assumed to be present as needed whether explicitly
stated or not.
"Anchored" means attached to an anchor block, or otherwise rendered
immobile with respect to other relevant basic parts or mechanisms.
Anchoring may be permanent or conditional (e.g., depending on data
inputs or clock signals), and a conditionally anchored part may be
referred to by its relevant conditional state (i.e., if the part is
unanchored in a given situation, it may be referred to as
unanchored, and vice versa).
"Atomically-precise" means where the identity and position of each
atom in a structure are specified by design. Structures such as
naturally-occurring or bulk-manufactured crystals or quasicrystals,
having surface irregularities, impurities, holes, dislocations or
other imperfections, are not atomically-precise. Atomically-precise
can, but does not have to, include knowledge of isotopic
composition.
A "balance" is a structure which transmits movement through one
side or route of a mechanism versus another. Balances can be used,
e.g., to perform computations and to route data. A balance may have
any number of inputs and outputs, some of which may be anchored, or
conditionally anchored (as when connected to a lock). The word
"balance" and forms thereof may also be used in its traditional
sense (e.g., equal masses or forces `balance` each other) as
context dictates.
A "basic part" is a fundamental building block, or primitive, of a
mechanism or computational system. For example, the basic parts of
MLL are links and rotary joints, the basic parts of MFL are links
and flexures, and the basic parts of MCL are cables, pulleys, and
knobs. "Basic part" is synonymous with "primitive," and the
distinction between a basic part and a mechanism is that basic
parts are, at least in their simplest implementations (e.g., a
pulley is a basic part because it can be monolithic, but some
implementations of a pulley could require an axle as a separate
part), not obviously logically divisible into smaller parts.
A "cable" is a flexible structure used to transmit tensile forces,
e.g., directly, or via pulleys.
"Coaxial" refers to rotary joints which share the same axis of
rotation. The term may also be applied to the analogous concept in
co-planar mechanisms which have multiple joints that share common
arcs of movement.
"Computing system" and forms thereof including "computational
system" means a system for carrying out general-purpose
computations. Such systems are Turing-complete. Devices only
capable of solving a single, or a limited class of, problems, such
as planimeters, harmonic synthesizers or analyzers, equation
solvers, function generators, and differential analyzers, are not
capable of general-purpose computing, and are therefore not
"computing systems." Power sources, motors, clock signal
generators, or other components ancillary to Turing-complete
computational means are not part of a computing system. Different
types of computational systems may be interfaced. For example, an
MLL system could take its input, provide its output, or otherwise
interact with other mechanical or electronic computing components,
systems, sensors, or data sources, although such a system would
only constitute an MLL computational system if the MLL components
themselves provide Turing-complete computational means.
"Co-planar" refers to a mechanism that moves in one or more
parallel planes. The term is used to differentiate essentially flat
(but potentially multi-layer) implementations of mechanisms from
those which utilize movement in non-parallel planes. The
distinction is largely one of convenience for naming and
visualization, as the mechanisms described herein can be
constructed in either a co-planar or non-co-planar manner.
"Data link" means a link that aids in transferring data, from one
location to another. A data link may be simply called a "link" when
context makes the meaning clear.
"Dry switching" as applied to the mechanical computational
components described herein means that no force is applied to
mechanisms that are not free to move in some way.
A "flexure" is a type of bearing which allows movement through
bending of a material, rather than sliding or rolling.
"Fork" means a branch in a line allowing one data link to be
coupled to more than one other data link. A fork can, e.g., allow
the copying of one input/output to multiple links or lines.
"Input" means the data, for example encoded by physical position,
supplied to a mechanism, e.g., for purposes of storing the data in
memory, transmitting the data elsewhere, performing combinatorial
logic on the data, or actuating the mechanism (e.g., via a clock
signal). For a variety of reasons, including that the input to one
mechanism can be the output from another, that some mechanisms use
the same data as both inputs and outputs (e.g., a circular shift
register or other mechanisms with a feedback loop), and because
some embodiments permit reversibility, there may be little
distinction between "inputs" and "outputs," the use of one term or
the other being more for didactic purposes. Therefore, regardless
of which term is used, both are assumed to apply if appropriate in
a given context.
"Line" means a sequence of connected data links. Also called a
"data line."
"Link" means a rigid structure or body connected to one or more
rotary joints.
A "lock" is a structure with a plurality of inputs where one or
more of the inputs being set to some pre-defined range of values
results in the other inputs being locked. For example, in a
two-input lock, upon setting one of the inputs to a non-zero value,
the other input is locked until the non-zero input is returned to
zero. In a two-input binary lock, the non-zero value being set
would typically be 1, but the lock mechanism may engage well before
the input actually reaches 1 (e.g., an input of 0.1 on one input
may be sufficient to lock the other input).
"Logic gate" includes traditionally-irreversible gates such as AND,
CNOT, NAND, NOT, OR, NOR, XNOR, XOR, reversible gates such as
Fredkin and Toffoli gates, or other mechanisms which provide
combinatorial logic (e.g., reversible implementations of
traditionally-irreversible gates, or special-purpose logic
gates).
"MCL" stands for Mechanical Cable Logic, a paradigm for creating
computational systems and mechanisms thereof, using cables, knobs,
and pulleys.
A "mechanism" is a combination of basic parts forming an assembly
of a level of complexity between that of a basic part and a
computational system. For example, in MLL, lines, locks, balances,
logic gates, and shift registers are all components, as are any
sub-assemblies which include more than one basic part. By virtue of
being basic parts, links and rotary joints, or any other basic
parts, are not mechanisms.
"MFL" stands for Mechanical Flexure Logic, a paradigm for creating
computational systems and mechanisms thereof, using links and
flexures.
"MLL" stands for Mechanical Linkage Logic, a paradigm for creating
computational systems and mechanisms thereof, using links and
rotary joints. Note that as the first and most extensively
described embodiment, details are provided for MLL that are not
necessarily repeated for MFL, MCL, or other embodiments. For
example, clocking is described extensively in the context of MLL,
but not other embodiments. Due to the analogous logical and
mechanical nature of the various embodiments presented, given the
teachings herein, it will be apparent how to apply information
presented for one embodiment to other embodiments.
"Not-coaxial" refers to two or more rotary joints which do not
share the same axis of rotation, or the analogous concept in
co-planar mechanisms.
"Output" means the data, for example encoded by physical position,
provided by a mechanism. See "Input" for additional detail and
comments on the interchangeability of the two terms.
A "pulley" is a mechanism which facilitates the routing of, and/or
transmission of forces by, one or more cables. Traditionally,
pulleys rotate as the cable moves, but this is not necessary, e.g.,
a cable could slide over a pulley's surface if the energy
dissipation incurred was suitably low. Pulleys may be anchored or
unanchored. Unanchored pulleys may be free to move as dictated by
their attached cables, or may have their movements constrained by a
track, groove, or other guiding means.
"Rotary joint" means one or more connections between rigid bodies
that allow rotational motion about an axis. Rotary joints may be
anchored or unanchored.
"Support link" means a link that provides physical support or
kinematic restraint for other links.
"Turing-complete" has its standard meaning as used in the field of
computer science, with the caveat that, since real-world systems
have bounded memory, time, and other parameters, such practical
limitations are acknowledged to exist, and so the term
"Turing-complete," when applied to an actual system, may be taken
to include such limitations (resulting in what may be more
precisely called a "linear bounded automata").
Introduction
Herein it is first shown that a mechanical computational system can
be designed solely from two basic parts: links, and rotary joints
(plus an anchor block to which these basic parts can be affixed;
this will be subsequently assumed and not necessarily mentioned
each time), using a design paradigm referred to as Mechanical
Linkage Logic ("MLL"). Subsequently, the paradigms of MLL are
generalized to show other ways in which simple and efficient
mechanical computing systems can be designed, such as Mechanical
Flexure Logic ("MFL") and Mechanical Cable Logic ("MCL") (any of
which could also be used in combination). Part of this
generalization also includes the description of a novel
classification system based on ways in which mechanical computing
systems can dissipate energy.
These new paradigms can simplify the design and construction of
mechanical computing mechanisms and systems, and reduce or
eliminate major sources of energy dissipation, such as friction and
vibration, while still operating at useful computational speeds.
Such computational systems can also be designed to operate
reversibly. These, and other factors, offer various benefits over
previously-proposed computing systems.
Embodiments of the invention provide all the mechanisms necessary
to create Turing-complete computational systems. For example, using
MLL, this includes lines, logic gates, locks, and balances, and
more complex mechanisms such as shift registers, each requiring no
basic parts other than links and rotary joints. Other embodiments
(e.g., MFL and MCL) provide analogous basic parts and mechanisms to
also permit the creation of Turing-complete computational
systems.
Energy-Efficient Mechanical Computing
As discussed herein, mechanical computing systems can dissipate
energy in several ways, including friction (including drag caused
by thermal movement at the atomic level), and vibrations, which can
be caused not only by running a mechanical system fast enough to
excite its resonant frequencies (something which can be avoided by
controlling clock speed), but by part-to-part impacts or relatively
unconstrained releases of energy. Examples of such part-to-part
impacts and relatively uncontrolled releases of energy include the
snapping motions of ratchet and pawl mechanisms, and detents.
Given these issues, four categories are defined for mechanical
computing devices:
Type 1: Devices which store potential energy (e.g., in a spring)
and which then release this energy in a manner unconstrained by the
computational degrees of freedom. Devices which use ratchets and
pawls, or detents, are examples of a Type 1 device, as the release
of stored energy by the ratchet and pawl or detent are assumedly
not tied to the computational degrees of freedom. In such a device,
if, e.g., a ratchet and pawl were present, while the snapping
motion of the pawl might occur with a periodicity controlled by a
clock system, the energy release of that snapping motion would not
be tied to the clock frequency. Rather, the speed of the energy
release would be a function of, e.g., the force applied to, and the
mass of, the pawl, regardless of the overall computational speed of
the system. The resulting collision of the pawl with the ratchet
could generate vibrations which waste energy.
Type 2: Devices which store potential energy, and then release this
energy in a manner controlled by the computational degrees of
freedom. For example, in the MLL systems described herein, if a
spring was to be placed between links in a line, as the system
drove the line back and forth, the spring would compress and
decompress. This compression and decompression would take place
gradually, at the frequency imposed by a system clock. The spring
would not be allowed to snap an unconstrained part into place at a
speed which, from the perspective of the system clock, is
arbitrary. Rather, the movement of the spring and attached parts is
governed by the computational degrees of freedom. Note that also in
the above scenario, the spring is part of a continuous linkage, and
so no collision of parts occurs like when a ratchet is impacted by
its pawl. This can also help reduce dissipated energy. And, even if
part collisions do occur (e.g., see the descriptions of knobs in
MCL systems), since the speed with which such contacts occur can be
coupled to the computational degrees of freedom, it is possible to
choose speeds which do not dissipate unacceptable amounts of energy
(and in fact, by driving such impacts with the system clock, which
preferably uses a sine wave-like signal, even a relatively fast
switching speed can result in very low part velocities at the
moment of impact).
Type 3: Devices which do not store more than trivial amounts of
potential energy, but have parts with non-trivial unconstrained
degrees of freedom. For example, depending on the implementation,
systems could be created using MLL where, due to one or more locks
being in the blank (0,0) position, connected links are free to move
in an essentially random manner due to thermal noise, system
vibrations, or other causes. Among other issues, such unconstrained
movement can result in having to expend energy to periodically set
mechanisms to a known state to ensure reliable operation. (Note
that such situations can be avoided with properly designed systems,
and this is presented as exemplary only).
Type 4: Devices which do not store more than trivial amounts of
potential energy, and have no more than trivial unconstrained
degrees of freedom. For example, a properly designed MLL system
where all movement is, directly or indirectly, coupled to data
inputs and/or the system clock. No components are allowed to freely
"float" as might a link connected only to a lock in the blank
state. With respect to defining "trivial" unconstrained degrees of
freedom, this means those which occur in a small enough portion of
the overall system (e.g., one particular type of mechanism has this
issue, but the mechanism is rare in the overall system), or those
that occur infrequently enough, that they do not materially affect
overall energy dissipation. An example of infrequently-occurring
unconstrained degrees of freedom would be when some system
mechanisms have temporarily unconstrained degrees of freedom during
an initialization or reset process. Such processes might only be
needed very infrequently compared to standard computation
operations, and so would contribute very little to a system's
energy dissipation. With respect to defining "trivial" when used in
reference to potential energy, note that all mechanical systems
will store some potential energy. For example, in theory, even very
rigid links deform slightly when force is applied to them. Assuming
no permanent deformation, they thus technically store potential
energy. Such unavoidable potential energy storage is considered
trivial. The point of Type 3 and Type 4 systems is the avoidance of
systems which purposefully store potential energy for later
release, such as in a system with springs, where those springs and
their potential energy are required for the system to function
properly.
Note that lack of substantial deformation is not the only way to
achieve a Type 3 or Type 4 system. Flexures may have substantial
deformation, but can be designed to store trivial amounts of either
total or net potential energy, as is explained herein. These
categories are generally ordered by their potential for energy
efficiency, with Type 1 devices being the least efficient, and Type
4 devices being the most efficient. That being said, the energy
efficiency of specific systems depends on implementation details. A
Type 2 system could be less efficient than a Type 3 system. A poor
implementation could make any system energy inefficient. Due to the
use of ratchets and pawls, detents, springs, or other mechanisms
which store and then release potential energy in a manner not tied
to computational degrees of freedom, all pre-existing
Turing-complete systems for mechanical computing can be categorized
as Type 1.
Mechanical Linkage Logic
An MLL system is built from various basic parts or primitives. In
the embodiments described, these are rotary joints and links, which
together form mechanical linkages. Mounted on an anchor block,
rotary joints and links can be used to create higher-order
mechanisms such as data transmission lines, locks, and balances.
Still higher order mechanisms, including logic gates (both
reversible and irreversible) and shift registers can be created by
combining locks and balances, or implemented more directly using
links and rotary joints. This suffices to build a complete
computational system.
To demonstrate this, using only links and rotary joints, the design
of data lines, logic gates, locks, and balances is explained.
Subsequently, using some of these mechanisms, the building of a
shift register is described. Shift registers are simple, yet when
combined with one or more logic gates which provide for universal
combinatorial logic, contain all the fundamental elements required
for computation. If the basic parts can build a shift register and
appropriate logic gates, it follows that an entire computational
system can be built.
Note that most of the mechanisms described are tailored towards
binary computational systems. As a result, most links will move
between two allowed positions. Some exceptions exist however, such
as designs where, for example, when one input is 1, the mechanism
drives one or more other inputs "backwards" (uses of words such as
"forward," backward" and other directions being didactic
conventions only, since no particular directions need be used in
actual mechanisms, nor do such directions need to be consistent
from one mechanism to the next). In other words, given a two bit
input that starts at (0,0), an input of 1 could cause the mechanism
to end up in a state such as (1,-1) or (1,-0.5) rather than (1,0).
As long as the system is designed to correctly handle such
kinematics, this need not be a problem. Also, links internal to the
implementation of various mechanisms may move between more than two
allowed positions, even if the inputs and outputs are still binary.
Binary is used for exemplary purposes because it is the most common
type of computational system used in conventional computers.
Ternary, quaternary, or other non-binary computational systems
could obviously be built using the teachings herein.
The mechanisms herein were frequently simulated or diagrammed with
Linkage v3 (free from www.linkagesimulator.com), Autodesk Inventor
2015/2016, or for molecular models, HyperChem, GROMACS, or
Gaussian. Many of the figures herein represent sub-assemblies taken
out of the context of a complete computational system. As a result,
they are not necessarily functional as shown. For example, a given
mechanism may not being fully constrained as depicted because, in a
complete system, the mechanism would attach to other components to
satisfy missing constraints, or would attach to some manner of
actuation (e.g., a clock signal). Realistic routing of data has
sometimes been omitted in favor of, e.g., straight lines, for
clarity. Ancillary support structures, such as anchor blocks, or
links which serve only to provide rigidity ("support links"), are
generally omitted.
Some diagrams depict parts within mechanisms which are not basic
parts of MLL. The most prevalent example of this is the use of
linear slides in Linkage models. This is a programmatic convenience
because some method of driving inputs is required to run a
simulation in Linkage. In an actual system, linear slides would be
replaced with, e.g., connections to appropriate inputs/outputs,
such as data lines or clock signals. Note that the kinematic solver
used by Linkage v3 has no concept of clock cycles, so it cannot
drive various inputs sequentially. And, Linkage, and other
programs, may fail on valid mechanisms simply because the solver
cannot compute the kinematics correctly. Due to these, and other,
caveats, the figures herein should not be taken as complete,
working mechanisms, but rather as didactic examples which, given
the teachings herein, can be readily adapted to create working
mechanisms, and combined to create complete computational
systems.
Rotary Joints
Friction in a rotary joint can be made smaller and smaller as the
size of the rotary joint gets smaller and smaller. At the molecular
scale, a rotary joint comprising two atoms rotating around a single
bond arguably has zero contact area, and various rotary joints
which rotate around the axis of single chemical bonds have been
analyzed and found to have very little friction. For example,
carbon-carbon single bonds, using carbon atoms mounted on diamond
supports, are one way to create a rotary joint that provides
rotation with very little energy dissipation.
FIG. 1 depicts a molecular model of one possible implementation of
a rotary joint being used to hold a rotating member. An upper
support structure 101 and lower support structure 102, which would
be connected to, e.g., an anchor block, in a complete device, are
used to connect a set of upper and lower bonds, along the same axis
of rotation, to a rotating member 103. The upper bonds include
upper carbon-carbon single bond 104, upper carbon-carbon single
bond 105, and upper carbon-carbon triple bond 106. The lower bonds
include lower top carbon-carbon single bond 107, lower bottom
carbon-carbon single bond 108, and lower carbon-carbon triple bond
109
The rotary joint is bonded to the support structures by several
oxygen atoms, including upper oxygen atom 110 and lower oxygen atom
111. The rotating member 103 as depicted is a roughly circular slab
of diamond, but this is representative only, as are the other
structures. The rotating member could be a link, a flywheel (e.g.,
to generate a clock signal), or anything else that needs to rotate,
in any shape.
Molecular dynamics simulations indicate that, with or without the
acetylenic units exemplified by upper carbon atoms and triple bond
106 and lower carbon atoms and triple bond 109, this structure
allows rotation with remarkably little drag. However, interposing
an acetylenic unit between the surrounding single bonds further
reduces the energy dissipation of such a rotary joint.
Given this example it will be obvious that varied implementations,
including other molecular structures, could provide the same type
of mechanism. For example, with small modifications to the model
depicted in FIG. 1, the oxygen atoms exemplified by oxygen atom 110
and oxygen atom 111, might be replaced with nitrogen, or another
element with an appropriate valence, bond strength, and steric
properties. Similarly, carbon could be replaced with silicon or
other appropriate elements. Or, entirely different structures could
be used, including carbon nanotubes or other structures, preferably
those which can stiffly hold molecular-scale rotary joints.
Additionally, such a rotary joint does not need to consist of only
a single bond or pair (e.g., upper and lower) of bonds. For
example, in larger implementations, the rotary joint could be
replaced with a vee jewel bearing, a rolling element bearing,
nested fullerenes (e.g., carbon nanotubes), or any one of many ways
known to allow rotation, preferably with low friction. Also,
multiple co-axial rotary joints can be used to create a stronger
joint (e.g., using a structure similar to the interdigitated design
of a door hinge). And, at the molecule scale, adding additional
rotary joints on the same rotational axis could further reduce the
rotational barrier if appropriate attention is paid to symmetry.
Note that while a rotary joint can be formed using one bond, device
strength and stiffness can benefit from a rotating part being held
on two sides, as depicted in FIG. 1, and/or using multiple bonds,
such as in the "door hinge" example. With respect to
molecular-scale embodiments, for ease of description, rotary joints
may be referred to as rotating about a single bond, although in
some cases it would be more precise to say that multiple bonds may
be used to form a single axis of rotation for the overall rotary
joint.
The magnitude of the rotational barriers, the torque required to
overcome them, the length of the lever arms (e.g., links), and the
time to rotate the link through the necessary range of the rotary
joint (and how far that range is) all depend on the design of a
particular system. As an example, molecular dynamics simulations
show that the energy required to rotate a link connected to a
molecular rotary joint through one radian at a speed of
1.times.10E9 radians/sec and a temperature of 180K can be below
1.times.10E-25 J. The Landauer Limit is 1.72.times.10E-21 J at
180K. This number is so far above the 1.times.10E-25 J figure for a
one radian rotation of a link around a rotary joint that even
mechanisms that use many rotary joints to perform a single bit
operation could do so under the Landauer Limit. Further, it is
expected that viscous drag from rotary joints, and energy loss from
other vibrational modes, will rapidly decrease as operating
temperature decreases due to phonons becoming frozen out.
Links
At their most basic, links are stiff, rod-like structures, although
some implementations may have different or substantially more
complex shapes. Most of the analysis herein which requires
estimations of values such as link mass, resonant frequencies, and
heat conduction, assume a link is composed of a diamond rod
approximately 20 nm in length and 0.5-0.7 nm in diameter. However,
links could be larger, or smaller, or completely different in shape
(as seen in the non-co-planar lock examples).
One of the smallest ways to implement a link would be to use a
single covalent bond as a link. For example, there are many
molecules which have more than one possible configuration, and the
transition between configurations ("conformers") could constitute
the movement of a link. One specific example is cyclohexane, which
has several possible conformations, including two chair
conformations, the basic boat conformation, and the twist boat
conformation. Switching between different conformations can occur
through bond rotation (although other changes, such as changes in
bond angle or torsion, may also be present and used), similar to
that in the previously-described rotary joint, and results in the
movement of one or more of the atoms in the structure.
The ability of such molecular conformational changes to propagate
over relatively long distances and through complex networks is
known to exist in biology, where it is termed "conformational
spread". (Bray and Duke, "Conformational spread: the propagation of
allosteric states in large multiprotein complexes," Annu Rev
Biophys Biomol Struct, 2004), and it will be apparent that
synthetic systems could be designed that work on the same
principles as larger linkages, but using only a single bond as a
link. Such designs could allow link lengths in the angstrom
range.
Regardless of the exact implementation of links and rotary joints,
one of the basic tasks in a computational system is to move data
from place to place. The exemplary systems described use links
connected by rotary joints to move data. While many types of
linkages would work, including linkages that provide true
straight-line movement, 4-bar linkages are frequently used as an
exemplary manner of precisely constraining link movement. FIG. 2
depicts a side view of such a 4-bar linkage (note that these are
sometimes called 3-bar linkages, since the support structure may or
may not be considered an additional bar), comprising an anchor
block 205, left support link 202, right support link 207, and data
link 204, wherein the lower end of the left support link 202 is
connected to the left side of the anchor block 205 by left anchored
rotary joint 203 and the lower end of the right support link 207 is
connected to the right side of the anchor block 205 by right
anchored rotary joint 206, and the upper end of the left support
link 202 is connected to the left side of the data link 204 by
upper left rotary joint 201 and the upper end of the right support
link 207 is connected to the right side of the data link 204 by
upper right rotary joint 208. Left anchored rotary joint 203 and
right anchored rotary joint 206 are prevented from moving with
respect to each other by the anchor block 205. Data link 204
transmits the movement of one support link to another support link.
The left support link 202 and right support link 207 are shown
shifted to the left. The left-leaning support links put the data
link 204 in a position to the left of the left anchored rotary
joint 203 and right anchored rotary joint 206. Arbitrarily, this
left position can be called "0" or "low", while if the left support
link 202 and right support link 207 were leaning to the right, that
position could be called "1" or "high." This provides a basis for a
binary system of data storage and transfer.
It will be apparent, even in the absence of the anchored rotary
joint symbol, that left anchored rotary joint 203 and right
anchored rotary joint 206 are anchored rotary joints because they
terminate on anchor block 205. In subsequent figures the anchor
block may not be explicitly shown. Rather, the diagrammatic
convention is often adopted where unfixed rotary joints are
depicted as a circle at the intersection of multiple links (which
are generally represented as straight lines or bars, although some
may have more complex shapes), while fixed or anchored rotary
joints are depicted as a circle and a triangle with short diagonal
lines at its base. In other figures, generally to reduce
complexity, some of these conventions may be changed or eliminated.
The figure descriptions and context will make it obvious how such
diagrams are to be interpreted.
As has already been described, information can be transmitted along
the length of a single data link. However, more complex
transmission and routing of data can be useful. One data link can
be connected to any number of other data links to continue the
transmission of data. Data transmission can continue in a straight
line across additional support links (while effectively just a
longer data link, it may be useful to include additional support
links to increase stiffness), or can change direction at rotary
joints, at whatever angle and in whatever plane desired. And, one
link can connect to multiple other links not only sequentially, but
also through forking structures, effectively copying the data for
use in multiple locations. This provides considerable flexibility
in routing data.
Data transmission may occur in both directions. Movement of a first
data link causes a second data link to move, and movement of the
second data link causes the first data link to move. By this means
every data link in the chain is tied to its neighbors. All the data
links in a chain, which can be of some significant length, can be
made to share a common movement, a property that can be used to
share a single binary value along the entire length of the chain. A
set of connected links is called a line.
Scale
MLL could be implemented using basic parts of virtually any size
desired. For example, at macroscopic scales, conventional machining
or 3D printing could be used, with, e.g., vee jewel bearings or
rolling-element bearings for rotary joints and conventional beams
or rods for links. At a smaller scale, e.g., 3D printing,
lithography-based techniques, or any of the other well-known ways
in which NEMS/MEMS devices can be manufactured, could be used to
create devices with mechanisms in the nanometer to micron range. At
an even smaller scale, MLL mechanisms could be molecular-scale. Due
to the higher operational frequencies and reduced energy
dissipation which tend to be afforded by smaller parts, MLL systems
would preferably be implemented at the smallest scales feasible
(while taking into account factors such as performance requirements
and budget). For this reason, while most of the teachings herein
are scale-independent, estimations of energy dissipation focus on
an exemplary molecular-scale embodiment.
Molecular bearings, gears, and rotors have been studied both
theoretically and experimentally, and representative literature
includes (Han, Globus et al., "Molecular dynamics simulations of
carbon nanotube-based gears," Nanotechnology, 1997; Kottas, Clarke
et al., "Artificial Molecular Rotors," Chem. Rev., 2005; Khuong,
Dang et al., "Rotational dynamics in a crystalline molecular
gyroscope by variable-temperature 13C NMR, 2H NMR, X-ray
diffraction, and force field calculations," J Am Chem Soc, 4, 2007;
Frantz, Baldridge et al., "Application of Structural Principles to
the Design of Triptycene-Based Molecular Gears with Parallel Axes,"
CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry, 4, 2009; Wang, Liu et
al., "Molecular Rotors Observed by Scanning Tunneling Microscopy,"
Three-Dimensional Nanoarchitectures, 2011; Isobe, Hitosugi et al.,
"Molecular bearings of finite carbon nanotubes and fullerenes in
ensemble rolling motion," Chemical Science, 3, 2013; Carter,
Weinberg et al., "Rotary Nanotube Bearing Structure and Methods for
Manufacturing and Using the Same," U.S. Pat. No. 9,150,405,
2015).
Molecular motors, while not necessarily required to drive MLL
systems, are commonplace enough now that entire books and
conferences are devoted to the topic. (Joachim and Rapenne, "Single
Molecular Machines and Motors: Proceedings of the 1st International
Symposium on Single Molecular Machines and Motors," Springer, 2013;
Credi, Silvi et al., "Molecular Machines and Motors," Topics in
Current Chemistry, Springer, 2014)
Additionally, molecular-scale computing, in various forms
(generally not Turing-complete), already exists. (Heinrich, Lutz et
al., "Molecule Cascades," Science, 2002; Reif, "Mechanical
Computing: The Computational Complexity of Physical Devices,"
Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science, Springer-Verlag,
2009; Remon, Ferreira et al., "Reversible molecular logic: a
photophysical example of a Feynman gate," Chemphyschem, 12, 2009;
Orbach, Remacle et al., "Logic reversibility and thermodynamic
irreversibility demonstrated by DNAzyme-based Toffoli and Fredkin
logic gates," PNAS, 52, 2012; Roy, Sethi et al., "All-Optical
Reversible Logic Gates with Optically Controlled Bacteriorhodopsin
Protein-Coated Microresonators," Advances in Optical Technologies,
2012).
In addition to other techniques present in the literature,
molecular-scale MLL mechanisms and computational systems could be
created using, e.g., molecular manufacturing using
mechanosynthesis, or assembly of properly functionalized molecules
using atomic force microscopy-type equipment. Conventional
chemistry or self-assembly (including DNA origami-type techniques)
may also be a feasible route for manufacturing molecular-scale MLL
mechanisms. Given the very limited number of basic parts required
(e.g., links and rotary joints in MLL) for the presented
embodiments, synthesis and assembly of the necessary basic parts
and mechanisms is in many ways simpler than the complexities of
manufacturing a conventional electronic computer or than
implementing previous proposals for mechanical computing.
Energy Dissipation
As noted, an entire MLL system can be constructed with nothing but
links and rotary joints. Since, particularly at the
molecular-scale, there is very little energy loss from rotation
around a well-designed rotary joint, a complete computational
system can be designed which dissipates very little energy.
Additional MLL design paradigms (e.g., torque and mass balancing to
reduce or prevent acoustic radiation) are also discussed herein,
and these can help reduce energy dissipation even further. Beyond
the physical design of the computational system, operating
conditions can also affect energy dissipation. For example, if an
MLL system is operated in a vacuum, acceleration and deceleration
of links takes place smoothly, and the applied forces are small
enough that deformation of basic parts contributes negligible
energy dissipation, energy dissipation may be reduced further.
The design of MLL mechanisms, and their interaction with the
clocking system, may also affect energy dissipation. For example,
MLL systems can be designed such that, by using clock phases
appropriately, force is not applied to mechanisms that are not free
to move (e.g., such a system does not try to move a locked
mechanism without first unlocking it). This is the MLL version of
"dry switching," a term normally used in the field of relays to
indicate that switches have no voltage across them when changing
state, but herein will be used in the context of MLL. Note that
while it is a major novel finding of MLL that complete
computational systems can be designed with nothing beyond links and
rotary joints, MLL systems may incorporate, or interface with,
additional components. For example, it is described herein how cams
and cam followers are one way to generate clock signals. However,
even though cams and cam followers can be designed (as is explained
herein) to have minimal energy dissipation, such mechanisms are
ancillary to, not actually part of, MLL. Motors or other ways of
powering the movement of MLL systems are another example of a
function that may be coupled to an MLL system, but are not
considered part of MLL, and the same could be said for, for
example, input/output interfaces which bridge, e.g., MLL and
electronic systems or non-MLL mechanical systems.
Any mechanical system can dissipate substantial energy if run fast
enough to excite internal mechanical resonances. To keep power
dissipation as low as possible, proper design can avoid low
frequency vibrational modes being coupled to the clock, and the
remaining vibrational modes can be computed and avoided by picking
a speed of operation slow enough to avoid exciting them, as well as
a clocking waveform that minimizes their excitation. In a
molecular-scale mechanical system such resonant frequencies can be
in the gigahertz range, and the limits they impose on switching
speed can therefore be correspondingly high.
The switching speed of an MLL system will, just as in electronic
computers, be determined by one or more clocks which produce clock
signals. If the frequency spectrum of a clock signal has a
component of its energy at or above the resonant frequencies of the
mechanisms to which it is attached, then a greater fraction of the
clock energy could be dissipated than is necessary.
In an MLL system, changes in a clock signal are preferably gradual
so as not to generate higher frequency components. For example, the
gradual changes inherent in a sine wave-like transition between 0
and 1 (potentially with flat areas at 0 and 1 between transitions
to allow for non-perfect synchronization of mechanisms between
different clock phases) allow a clock signal to avoid placing
greater strain on system mechanisms than necessary as parts
accelerate and decelerate more uniformly than if, e.g., a square
wave, was used.
There are many ways of generating clock signals. One way of
generating a gradually-changing clock signal is to use a spinning
mass whose rotational motion is converted into linear or
quasi-linear motion. This is, conceptually, the equivalent of a
flywheel and crank, and such a device can be made with only links
and rotary joints. Some embodiments of MLL systems may couple to
other methods of generating clock signals, such as spring and mass
systems, or cams and cam followers, which are described herein.
Several possible sources of energy dissipation were analyzed,
including stress induced thermal disequilibrium, and acoustic
radiation. These were not the primary limiting factors in operating
frequency, at least for the exemplary systems analyzed (e.g.,
molecular-scale, diamond-based systems). Mechanical resonances and
inertia are the primary limits to switching speed for these
systems.
While thermal equilibration turns out not to be a limiting factor
for the exemplary systems analyzed, in some situations it could be,
and one objective when seeking to minimize energy dissipation could
be to operate mechanisms isothermally. For this reason, short
thermal equilibration times can be desirable. To achieve this, the
basic parts of the system are preferably well-coupled to one or
more thermal reservoirs. For example, links are generally bonded to
a rotary joint which is bonded to an anchor block, or to rotary
joints that bond to other links, which are in turn bonded to an
anchor block. While the exact path length can vary based on the
implementation, this tends to keep the path from any link to an
anchor block, which can serve as a thermal reservoir, short.
Note that diamond is used as an exemplary anchor block material
(and may also be used for basic parts), for among other reasons,
due to its high stiffness (Young's Modulus of about 1000 Gpa).
Diamond also has good heat conduction, which can be over 2000 W/mK
in natural diamond, and higher in defect-free and isotopically
purified diamond (a principle which applies to other materials as
well). Many other materials could be used, for both anchor blocks
and basic parts, although high stiffness would be preferred for
various reasons, including raising the frequency of resonant
vibrations, and good heat conduction would be preferred if fast
thermal equilibration is desired. Other exemplary materials include
Carbyne (Young's Modulus of 32,100 GPa), various Fullerenes (e.g.,
carbon nanotubes can have Young's Moduli of over 1000 GPa, thermal
conductivity of 3180-3500 W/mK or higher), Silicon Carbide (Young's
Modulus of 450 GPa), and Silicon (Young's Modulus of 130-185 GPa,
thermal conductivity of 148 W/mK). Note that these values are
approximate, and generally represent values measured at 300K (room
temperature). The values may vary substantially depending on a
material's atomic structure, purity, isotopic composition, size and
shape, and temperature. For example, while Silicon's thermal
conductivity is 148 W/mK at 300K, it can exceed 3000 W/mK at
temperatures around 20K.
Further, note that MLL systems need not be composed of only one
type of material. Various materials each have different pros and
cons, including not only bulk properties such as stiffness, thermal
conductivity, and thermal expansion, but at the molecular scale,
the strength of individual bonds may become important, as may be
the exact size of various basic parts and their inter-atomic
spacing (e.g., so that they mesh properly with other basic parts,
among other concerns). Given this, MLL systems may use a variety of
different materials.
The estimated thermal equilibration time of one exemplary
molecular-scale embodiment using diamond links about 20 nm in
length is .about.0.54 ps. Given this, even a few nanoseconds of
thermal equilibration makes the energy dissipated due to thermal
disequilibrium essentially 0. Therefore, thermal equilibration time
is not the limiting factor in switching time for such an
embodiment.
In theory, a reversible operation can be carried out with 0 energy,
while irreversible operations result in the dissipation of ln(2)
kBT of heat (.about.3.times.10-21 J at room temperature) per bit
erased, regardless of the hardware's efficiency (the Landauer
Limit). To reduce the energy dissipation of a program running on a
conventional (irreversible) computer, the logic elements of the
hardware might be redesigned to dissipate less energy during the
computational process. This could result in a significant
improvement in energy efficiency because a conventional computer
dissipates much more than ln(2) kBT per erased bit. In fact, even
when executing instructions that erase no bits at all, a
conventional computer dissipates much more than ln(2) kBT per
operation. As a consequence, it is possible to reduce the energy
dissipation of a conventional computer without paying any attention
to reversibility.
However, if the energy efficiency of a computer is improved to the
point that the Landauer Limit becomes significant, reversibility
becomes important, as it allows computations to be carried out
under the Landauer Limit. Consequently, MLL mechanisms are designed
to allow reversibility, although both reversible and irreversible
computational systems can be implemented using MLL. Note that
reversibility can occur at several levels. For example, an
individual Fredkin gate is reversible. However, reversibility may
also be implemented at higher levels, such as when using a
retractile cascade to uncompute a series of previous computations.
Such techniques are well-known in the literature, along with
appropriate clocking schemes such as Bennett Clocking and Landauer
Clocking.
Conventional Logic Gates
Links and rotary joints not only serve as the basic parts for
moving data from place to place, but also form the basis for logic
gates. An important finding of MLL is that any logic gate,
reversible or irreversible, can be implemented with only links and
rotary joints, affixed to an anchor block to hold them in place
(and which may also serve as a thermal sink).
For example, FIG. 3 shows a mechanism that can serve as both an AND
and a NAND gate. Anchor 301 and linear slide 302 serves as the
first input to the gate, connecting to rotary joint 306. Anchor 303
and linear slide 304 serves as the second input to the gate,
connecting to rotary joint 307. Anchored rotary joints 305 and 309,
plus unanchored rotary joints 306, 307, 308, 310 and 311 are
connected via the appropriate links. AND output 310 and NAND output
311 provide for the use of the gate as an AND or NAND gate. The
functioning of this gate is as follows. If linear slide 302 pushes
on rotary joint 306 (an input of "1", whereas no movement of the
linear slide would be an input of 0) and linear slide 304 pushes on
rotary joint 307, the effect will be to drive AND output 310
forward, producing an output of "1." If either of the inputs (or
both) are 0, AND output 310 ends up in the same position it
started, producing an output of "0." This reproduces the truth
table expected of an AND gate.
Since a NAND gate is an AND gate with inverted output, the same
mechanism can be used as a NAND gate by reading NAND output 311
instead of AND output 310, assuming that, since NAND output 311
moves in the opposite direction of AND output 310, no movement at
NAND output 311 represents an output of "1" and movement to the
left represents a "0". Of course, for use only as an AND gate, NAND
output 311 need not be present. And, for use only as a NAND gate,
the AND output 310 can be ignored. The two are combined for
illustrative purposes; they would not necessarily be so combined in
actual use. Since NAND is known to be a universal gate (meaning,
all other gates can be created with the appropriate combination of
NAND gates), this mechanism alone would suffice to create any
combinatorial logic. However, it may be more efficient to construct
other types of gates directly, rather than through the combination
of NAND gates, and to demonstrate other types of gates, including
an alternate embodiments of the NAND gate, additional logic gates
are subsequently described.
FIG. 4 shows a NOR gate made with only links and rotary joints.
Input 1 comprises linear slide anchor 401 and is connected via a
rotary joint to inverter 405. Input 2 comprises linear slide anchor
403 and linear slide 404 and is connected via a rotary joint to
inverter 406. As in all such figures, the linear slides are present
as a diagrammatic or programmatic convenience and should be taken
to represent some appropriate connection when these individual
mechanisms are combined into a higher-level assembly. Inverters 405
and 406 invert a leftward signal to a rightward signal and
vice-versa and connect via rotary joints to upper right portion of
the mechanism 407, and lower right portion of the mechanism 408,
respectively. Due to the inverters, when either of the inputs
pushes to the right, the movement gets inverted into a leftward
motion in the upper right portion of the mechanism 407 and the
lower right portion of the mechanism 408. The position of output
409 replicates the expected truth table, with the illustrated
position representing a "1" and the position where the output moves
to the left representing a "0". While other implementations are
possible, this gate was shows the modular nature of the mechanisms.
A NOR gate is equivalent to an AND gate with both inputs inverted.
The upper right portion of the mechanism 407 and the lower right
portion of the mechanism 408 therefore show an alternate
implementation of an AND gate, with an inverter attached to each
input to instead create a NOR gate. Removing the inverters and
connecting the inputs directly to the appropriate locations in the
upper and lower right portion of the mechanism would result in an
AND gate. Also, as was shown in FIG. 3, this mechanism could then
also serve as a NAND gate by inverting the output of the AND gate.
Finally, if the inverters are left in place, but the output
inverted, the NOR gate becomes an OR gate.
Finally, FIG. 5 shows an XOR gate implemented using only links and
rotary joints. Input 1 comprises anchored rotary joint 501 and
linear slide 502, while input 2 comprises anchored rotary joint 504
and linear slide 503. Input 1 and input 2 are coupled to output 505
via a series of links, anchored rotary joints, and unanchored
rotary joints. The movement, or lack thereof, at output 505
replicates the expected truth table for XOR.
The foregoing demonstrates that any logic gate can be directly
implemented using only links and rotary joints. Note that by
carrying the input data forward along with the expected output of a
logic gate so that no data is lost in the computation, logic gates
which are traditionally considered irreversible can be made
reversible. There are also well-known logic gates which are
inherently reversible, such as the Toffoli gate and Fredkin gate,
which can also be implemented in many ways using MLL.
Reversible Logic Gates
FIG. 6 shows a Fredkin gate (also called a CSWAP gate), a
well-known universal reversible gate. The three inputs to the gate
601, 602 and 603 are connected, via a series of links, anchored
rotary joints, and unanchored rotary joints, to outputs 604, 605
and 606. It may be of interest to note that this particular
implementation of a Fredkin gate is composed of three XOR gates,
and an AND gate, plus some forked data lines used to replicate data
so that it can be used at more than one place within the gate. This
demonstrates not only more sophisticated routing of data than the
previous gates, but that reversible logic can be constructed from
irreversible logic. A Fredkin gate does not erase any data and so
need not be subject to the Landauer Limit.
Given the foregoing logic gate examples, it will be obvious that
any type of logic gate necessary for implementing a complete
general-purpose computing system, reversible or irreversible, can
be implemented within the design paradigms of MLL, using only links
and rotary joints. Note that each of the foregoing logic gate
examples are co-planar mechanisms. This means that they operate in
one or more parallel planes, with movement occurring parallel to
the plane of the image. One of the advantages to co-planar designs
is that they are easy to represent on paper, to provide the reader
with an intuitive understanding of how such mechanisms work. This
is not the only way to implement logic gates, or any MLL mechanism,
and mechanisms that move in more than one plane are also discussed
herein. Also note that in the co-planar mechanisms, hidden or
dotted lines are generally not used to show which links are behind
which other links. This is because it largely does not matter. In
most cases, a given link could be on top of, or below, some other
link, and the function of the mechanism would not be affected,
subject to considerations such as not having links bump into each
other during movement. One may also wish to consider issues such as
arranging the links in a manner which minimizes the distance to a
heat sink, or maximizes mechanism strength or stiffness, but these
exemplary designs are meant to be didactic, not to provide an
optimal implementation. Optimized implementations could differ with
the requirements of a particular computational system, including
the types of computations to be performed, the desired
computational speed, the desired size or mass of the system, the
materials from which the mechanisms are made, and the operating
environment (e.g., operating temperatures).
Locks
Various ways in which multiple data links or lines can interact
have already been described. For example, they can share data by
tying their physical movements to each other around a common rotary
joint. And data links or lines can provide input/output for a logic
gate (not to mention being used inside a logic gate). However,
additional methods of interaction can be useful in implementing a
complete computing system.
Another way multiple links or lines can interact is via a mechanism
which causes links to interfere with each other's movements. That
is, the position of a first link can allow or prevent one or more
other links from moving, and vice versa. For example, consider a
two-input mechanism, where each input can be 0 or 1. The design can
be such that when both inputs are 0, either input could become 1,
but when either input is 1, the other is locked into place and must
therefore remain 0. In this example, more than one input cannot
become 1 at the same time, although other designs are possible.
This mechanism is referred to as a lock. It is common for a lock to
have inputs and outputs, just like a logic gate. E.g., a 2 input
lock has 2 inputs, and can have 0, 1 or 2 outputs. Each input line
to the lock can either continue as an output line, or it can
terminate at the lock.
One of the uses of a lock is to create a conditional anchor point.
As has already been explained, a rotary joint can be anchored or
not anchored, often depending on whether the rotary joint is
affixed to an anchor block. However, affixing a rotary joint to an
anchor block is not the only way to render it immobile. Rather, a
rotary joint can be connected to one or more links which, due to
the configuration of the one or more links (whether this
configuration is permanent or transient), does not permit movement
of the rotary joint. For example, consider a triangle made of three
links. Each link is affixed to the two other links by rotary joints
at each end. If two of these rotary joints are also connected to an
anchor block, even if the third rotary joint is not connected to an
anchor block, it is effectively anchored, as the entire triangle is
rigid. None of the triangle's links can move with respect to each
other, or the anchor block. In this simple example, assuming there
is no way to change the link configuration, the third rotary joint
is effectively anchored. There are situations where it is useful to
have a rotary joint sometimes anchored and sometimes not anchored.
Locks allow this: The side of the lock that is locked cannot move,
and so as long as it is locked, it can effectively act as an anchor
point. The utility of conditional anchor points will be explained
subsequently. Another useful aspect of some embodiments of locks is
that, for example, a binary lock with two inputs can have three
possible states: (0,0), also called "blank," (0,1), and (1,0). The
blank state can be useful in saving state, and allowing reversible
computation, as can be seen herein in the description of how an
exemplary shift register can be implemented.
As with all MLL embodiments, there are multiple ways of
implementing locks using only links and rotary joints. FIG. 7 and
FIG. 8 depict a two-input co-planar lock in two different states.
FIG. 7 shows the position of the lock where both inputs are 0,
while FIG. 8 shows the position of the lock when one of the inputs
is 1. Top input 701 and bottom input 702 connect via rotary joints
to the top and bottom halves of the lock, respectively. Each half
of the lock comprises a 4-bar linkage, comprising links 703, 705
and 712 on the upper half, and links 704, 706, and 713 on the lower
half. In addition, four diagonal links 707, 708, 710 and 711, hold
an additional link 709, which connects to the two 4-bar linkages
via unanchored rotary joints. The functioning of the mechanism is
as follows: When one of the inputs 701 or 702, moves from 0 to 1,
the respective 4-bar linkage is moved. The movement of the 4-bar
linkage, via either links 707 and 710 for the top half, or links
708 and 711 for the bottom half, causes the rotation of link 709.
Link 709, being the same length as links 703, 704, 712, and 713, as
well as initially being at the same angle, allows either of the
inputs to assume a value of 1 by pivoting through the same arc that
the 4-bar linkage must follow when moved by an input.
However, once an input has moved either the top or bottom 4-bar
linkage, along with link 709, the other 4-bar linkage (and so its
associated input/output) is no longer free to move. The reason is
that link 709 is now not parallel with, depending on which input
was set to 1, links 703 and 712, or links 704 and 713. Because of
this, the rotation of link 709 will not follow that of the second
4-bar linkage, should it try to move. In essence, one of the links
(link 705 for the top, if not already moved, or link 706 for the
bottom, if not already moved) will be trying to move through two
different arcs at once, resulting in the mechanism locking. This is
essentially a co-planar version of rotary joints being not-coaxial
(described elsewhere herein), but instead of the rotary joint axes
changing (which does happen, but these axes were never co-axial in
the literal sense to begin with), the point here is that the arc
through which the connected links would move changes. Once one of
the inputs is set to 1, the only allowed movement is to set that
input back to 0 so that either (but not both simultaneously) sides
are again free to move to the "1" position.
The lock design of FIG. 7 has the property that it locks quickly
and unlocks slowly. For example, virtually any movement of one of
the inputs locks the other input. And, once an input has been set
to 1, locking the mechanism, that input must be brought essentially
all way back to 0 before the lock unlocks. It may be desirable to
design locks which have more gradual locking properties, and this
may have advantages including smoother changes in entropy
(resulting in reduced energy dissipation), reduced maximal force on
the mechanisms at a given switching speed, and a reduced time
between lock/unlock cycles, since there is less concern that one
input must be allowed to settle to almost exactly 0 before the
other input can start to move. The inclusion of springs in
connections to a lock can also aid in the operation of a lock, as
the mechanism can then be driven as desired even when small
positional errors are present which would otherwise lock a
mechanism which almost instantly locks when not exactly in the
unlocked position (i.e., at "0"). Another method of accomplishing
this is to replace link 709 with a spring of the same length (or
add a spring and shorten the link) which has a suitably chosen
spring constant. If link 709 is, or incorporates, a very stiff
spring, the lock will allow only small positional errors. If link
709 is, or incorporates, a softer spring, the lock will allow
larger positional errors.
FIG. 9 and FIG. 10 depict a lock where, due to gradually changing
torque as the mechanism moves from unlocked to locked, the locking
action is more gradual. FIG. 9 shows the lock when inputs 901 and
902, are 0, while FIG. 10 shows the state of the lock after input
901 has been set to 1 while input 902 is still 0. Inputs 901 and
902 are connected to the rest of the mechanism via unanchored
rotary joints. Note that the setting of one input to 1 results in
driving the other input backwards slightly in this design. The
overall system can be designed to allow this, or the backwards
motion could be kept internal to the mechanism, such as by using
springs that absorb such motion rather than transmitting it
directly to other links.
Being made of the same basic parts, all MLL mechanisms tend to
share similar concerns. The concepts of sudden versus gradual
changes in entropy, limiting maximum forces, and designing
mechanisms to allow reduced latency between clock phases, can apply
to any MLL mechanism, not just locks.
Non-Co-Planar Mechanisms
Many of the mechanisms herein are of co-planar design. While
co-planar designs are emphasized for clarity of presentation, MLL
mechanisms need not be co-planar. Any MLL mechanisms can be
implemented in a manner which is non-co-planar. For example, FIG.
11 depicts a lock, constructed of links and rotary joints, which is
not co-planar. Rather, as will be subsequently explained, the
rotary joints allow the links to move perpendicular, rather than
parallel, to the face of the Anchor Block.
In FIG. 1 land subsequent views of the same mechanism, link 1101
will be referred to as Link1, link 1102 as Link2, link 1103 as
Link3, space 1104 as OpenJoint4, space 1105 as OpenJoint5, space
1106 as OpenJoint6, space 1107 as OpenJoint7, rotary joint 1108 as
Joint1, rotary joint 1109 as Joint2, rotary joint 1110 as Joint3,
rotary joint 1111 as Joint4, and anchor block 1112 as the Anchor
Block. The Anchor Block provides anchor points for the rotary
joints Joint1 and Joint4, which are connected to Link1 and Link2,
respectively. Link1 is connected to Link2 by Joint2, and Link3 is
connected to Link2 via Joint3. All Joints and Link1, Link2, and
Link3 are shown in the unlocked position.
In the unlocked position, which may be referred to as "(0,0)", the
axis of Joint3 is aligned with the axis of Joint1, and the axis of
Joint2 is aligned with the axis of Joint4. Joint1 and Joint 3 may
thus be referred to as coaxial, as can Joint2 and Joint4. If either
Link1 or Link3 were to pivot, one of their rotary joints would move
out of their current plane, and thus, depending on which link was
pivoted, some of the joints would no longer be coaxial with each
other (a condition referred to as "not-coaxial"). The concepts of
coaxial and not-coaxial are important as, in this embodiment, these
conditions are what define locked versus unlocked. The reason for
this is that in the unlocked position, Link1 and Link3 each have an
axis about which they might pivot. For Link1, this is the axis
defined by Joint1 and Joint 3 when they are coaxial. For Link3,
this is the axis defined by Joint2 and Joint4 when they are
coaxial. When these sets of joints are not in the coaxial position,
the lack of alignment between the two axes prevents pivoting, as a
rigid object with one degree of freedom cannot simultaneously pivot
around two different axes. As a result, when either Joint1 and
Joint3 are not-coaxial, or Joint2 and Joint4 are not-coaxial, the
lock is locked and the only allowed motion is to return to the
unlocked position.
Note that technically, virtually any amount of pivoting of Link1 or
Link3 would create a locked condition. However, for the purposes of
explanation, subsequent figures show about 30 degrees of rotation.
This is arbitrary, and any amount of pivoting which will allow the
system to act reliably could be used (as could any other angle, as
opposed to perfectly perpendicular to the face of the Anchor
Block). Analogously with the co-planar lock, if Link 2 were
replaced with a spring of similar length, the tolerance of the lock
for positional errors in its inputs could be increased, to the
extent thought desirable. It will be obvious given this explanation
that if either Link1 or Link3 were to pivot a suitable amount,
whichever link had not pivoted would then be prevented from doing
so until the pivoted link was returned to the unlocked
position.
To accomplish this pivoting, OpenJoint4 and OpenJoint6 are
connection points where other links could connect to Link3, and
OpenJoint5 and OpenJoint7 are connection points where other links
could connect to Link1. These other links can serve as inputs to
the lock. Link1 and Link3 each have a pair of connections
(OpenJoint5 and OpenJoint7, and OpenJoint4 and OpenJoint6,
respectively) not to allow four inputs (although that is possible,
that is not the intent of this particular design), but rather to
allow an input line to continue on past the lock if desired. For
example, OpenJoint5 may be thought of as a continuation of
OpenJoint7 (or vice versa) and OpenJoint4 may be thought of as a
continuation of OpenJoint6 (or vice versa).
FIG. 12 shows a top-view of the same mechanism as FIG. 11, with
only link 1101 and anchor block 1112 being visible in this
view.
FIG. 13 shows the same mechanism as FIG. 11, but in a locked
position that could be called "(1,0)". In this state, 1101 has
rotated, via rotary joints 1108 and 1110, making rotary joints 1109
and 1111 not-coaxial. Because 1109 and 1111 are not-coaxial, 1103
is no longer free to rotate, hence the locked state. The rotation
of 1101 would be accomplished by other links (not depicted)
connected to 1105 and/or 1107.
FIG. 14 shows a top view of the state of the mechanism in FIG. 13.
In this top view, it can be seen that 1101 has pivoted about 30
degrees counterclockwise. 1102 cannot be seen in this view, but
would pivot with 1101 in this instance, revealing 1103 below it.
Note that the direction of rotation is arbitrary. Both clockwise
and counterclockwise rotations would have the same effect of
locking the lock. This is true of 1103 as well.
FIG. 15 shows the same mechanism as FIG. 13, but in a locked
position due to the rotation of 1103 instead of 1102. This position
could be called "(0,1)." In this state, 1103 has rotated, via
rotary joints 1109 and 1111, making rotary joints 1108 and 1110
not-coaxial, thereby locking 1101. The rotation of 1103 would be
caused by other links (not shown) connected to one or more of the
Open Joints, 1104 and 1106, of 1103.
FIG. 16 shows a top view of the state of the mechanism in FIG. 15.
In this top view it can be seen that 1103 has rotated about 30
degrees clockwise, while 1101 is still in its original position. As
with 1101, the direction of rotation is arbitrary. Either clockwise
or counterclockwise would allow proper function of the lock, and
either or both could be used.
Given these examples and the principles of MLL, many other designs
(for locks and all other MLL mechanisms) will be obvious. The
specific implementations which work most efficiently may be
case-dependent, and the exemplary embodiments herein are not
provided as examples of optimized mechanisms, but rather to
demonstrate how all elements necessary for a generalizable
computational system can be created using only links and rotary
joints, and that even within the constraints of only using links
and rotary joints, many different logical and mechanical options
are available, including virtually any type of logic gates,
reversible and irreversible, and mechanisms that largely function
in two dimensions ("co-planar"), or three dimensions
(non-co-planar), complete with robust routing of data, at whatever
angles are desired.
Balances
Force and motion can be transmitted from one end of a link to the
other end using a rotary joint about which the link pivots. Such a
mechanism will be called a "balance," since frequently the input is
in the center of a link, and one side moves "up" or "down,"
conceptually similar to a classic pan balance. Of course, the exact
movement will depend on the forces applied, the exact mechanism
design, and the state of the system.
A simple balance is depicted in two different states in FIG. 17
(showing an input of 0, the linear slide of input 1701 being
retracted) and FIG. 18 (showing the same mechanism with an input of
1, the linear slide of input 1701 being extended). In these
figures, input 1701 is connected to the link 1702 by rotary joint
1703. Upper rotary joint 1704 and lower rotary joint 1705 connect
via links to upper output 1706 and lower output 1707, respectively.
Upper rotary joint 1704 is anchored in these depictions, preventing
upper output 1706 from moving, while lower rotary joint 1705 is
unanchored, allowing lower output 1707 to move if input 1701
moves.
FIG. 19 depicts what would happen if upper rotary joint 1704 and
lower rotary joint 1705 were reversed (meaning, if upper rotary
joint 1704 were unanchored and lower rotary joint 1705 were
anchored), given an input of 1. The output movement would occur at
upper output 1706 instead of lower output 1707. One of the
interesting properties of balances is that they can be designed to
conserve the sum of their inputs. In the foregoing example, if the
input is 0, the output is 0. If the input is 1, the output is 1.
This would be true of a simple line as well, but complex balances
with multiple inputs can be constructed that still sum their
outputs.
Another advantage to balances is that they can route data
differently depending on other input. Other input, for example, may
control the state of locks connected to a balance. The locks act as
conditional anchors, routing data down one line or another
depending on the state of the locks and allowing a balance to
function as a switch, or "switch gate." For example, a single
balance with conditional anchors could be put into any of the
configurations shown in FIG. 17, FIG. 18, and FIG. 19, since the
anchor points can be changed (this concept is demonstrated in
subsequent figures).
FIG. 20 and FIG. 21 illustrate one way in which balances with
multiple inputs can be used to conserve the sum of the inputs, and
to route data. Two states of the same mechanism are depicted, which
is formed by connecting two 2-input balances together (a "binary
double balance"). Inputs 2001 and 2002 are connected to link 2005
by rotary joints. Link 2005 is connected to link 2007 via a rotary
joint. Link 2007 connects to link 2006 via a rotary joint. Link
2006 connects to outputs 2003 and 2004 via their respective rotary
joints. The fixed length of link 2007 causes the sum of the inputs
to be conserved. Since link 2007 cannot change in length, if either
input 2001 or 2002 moves, a corresponding move must take place at
output 2003 or 2004. FIG. 20 shows the state of the mechanism when
input 2001 is 1, and input 2002 is 0. FIG. 21 shows the state of
the mechanism when input 2001 and 2002 are both 1. Note that the
mechanism in these figures (as is frequently the case due to the
complexity of more complete systems and the need for clear
illustrations of the basic underlying mechanisms of MLL) is not
attached to other mechanisms as it would be in an actual MLL
system. In this particular case, without additional constraints
this mechanism will not be reliable. For example, when moving from
an input of (0,0) to (1,0), the sum of the outputs must be 1, since
the sum of the inputs is 1. However, there is no way to tell if the
outputs will be (0,1) or (1,0), or even something like (0.5,0.5).
In an actual system, one way of solving this problem is with locks.
By conditionally locking one of the outputs, the other output is
forced to move in a predictable manner.
Switch Gates
As previously described, balances, in conjunction with locks, are
one way in which a switch gate can be implemented. FIG. 22 shows a
switch gate with a top input 2201, a bottom input 2202, and a
center input 2203. The middle input is connected, via a balance, to
top output 2204 and bottom output 2205. The top and bottom inputs
control whether the middle input is routed to the top output or the
bottom output. For example, if top input 2201 is set to 1, then the
upper lock to which top input 2201 is connected, is locked. Since
that means that the line going to top output 2204 cannot move, when
an input of 1 is provided at middle input 2203, the balance to
which middle input 2203 is connected must move the line which leads
to bottom output 2205. The top and bottom input would generally
never both be 1 at the same time, so these could actually be
condensed into one input which controls both locks, e.g., and input
of 0 locking the upper lock, and an input of 1 locking the lower
lock, or vice-versa.
Binary double balances coupled with locks can also be used as
switch gates. Given a binary double-balance, one input is locked
permanently, while one input is unlocked permanently and connected
to an input (typically a clock). A single line can then be used to
switch two complementary locks that are connected to the two
remaining inputs of the double-balance. In essence, the clock input
is routed through the double balance to one or the other "input" by
the single line which controls the two complementary locks. Note
that switch gates (and other MLL mechanisms that have locked
states) can be used even when dry switching is desired. In the case
of a switch gate like that in FIG. 22, the clock force is applied
via a balance connecting two locks. Since the system can be
designed so that both locks are never locked simultaneously when
the clock force is applied, one side is always free to move.
Therefore, the clock force is not directed to an immobile
mechanism, but rather to a mechanism that is always conditionally
mobile in one direction or the other.
Logic Gates Using Locks and Balances
An interesting property of locks and balances is that they can be
used to create all the traditional logic gates (in addition to
other mechanisms), reversible and irreversible. Before describing
one way in which this can be done, it will facilitate understanding
the exemplary lock-based logic gate to discuss an alternate method
of providing input to a mechanism (in this case, a lock). It is
typical to think of one binary input as being a single connection
to a line. For example, in the previously-described logic gates
such as AND, NAND, NOR, and XOR, these logic gates each took two
inputs, often represented as two linear actuators, but what in an
actual MLL system would be, e.g., two connections to data lines.
The Fredkin gate takes three inputs, and so had three locations
where data lines could be connected. Each of the inputs to these
exemplary logic gates was binary, meaning, the mechanism was
designed such that one position represented 0, while a second
position represented 1. Although other implementations are
possible, frequently an input of 0 has been represented as no
movement occurring at that input, while an input of 1 was
represented by some forward or rightward movement.
However, there are other ways to represent input. For example,
instead of a binary input using one connection which provides one
of two possible values (0 or 1), a binary input could consist of
two connections, one representing 0, and the other representing 1.
In this scenario, one of the connections to an input would always
move: The 0 line would move if the input was 0, and the 1 line
would move if the input was 1. This is in contrast to 0 being
previously represented by no movement of an input. This strategy of
using two lines per binary input is useful with locks because it
allows either value, 0 or 1, to create a locked state. An input of
0 locks one side of the lock, while an input of 1 locks the other.
One use to having both 0 and 1 resulting in a locked state on
different sides is that this permits a lock to act as two different
conditional anchor points. This can, for example, be used to
control which side of a balance moves when input is fed into the
balance. The following example shows a mechanism which illustrates
how this property of locks can be combined with balances to create
logic gates.
FIG. 23 depicts one way in which a NAND gate can be constructed
using locks and balances. Clock input 2301 is connected to balance
2302, which is in turn connected to balance 2303, which is in turn
connected to balance 2304. Via a series of locks and lines, the
clock input is then routed to balances 2305 and 2306, and finally
results in the movement of upper output 2312 or lower output 2311.
Inputs 2307 to 2310 provide inputs to the gate, with four input
lines being used to represent two binary inputs, as previously
described. Specifically, input 2307 will be referred to as "A0"
(meaning that it is associated with input "A," and will move if the
"A" input is 0), input 2308 as "B0," input 2309 as "A1," and input
2310 as "B1." Note that for inputs 2307 to 2310, there are two
inputs each with the same label. This is because the same input
data is used in two different places within the gate. In reality,
this would not require two separate inputs for each, but rather one
input for each could be forked using simple rod-like links, or
connected to a single link which provides multiple connection
points. The depiction in FIG. 23 was chosen for clarity, not
because this need be exactly how the mechanism is actually
implemented (which is generally true for all the mechanisms
described herein). The mechanism works as follows: If actuated,
inputs 2307 to 2310 move the side of the gate to which they are
connected, and lock the gate. In other words, if the input (A,B) is
(0,1), the A0 lines will move, and the B1 lines will move. Since A
is not 1, the A1 lines will not move, and since B is not 0, the B0
lines will not move. Obviously, and input, (0,0), (0,1), (1,0) or
(1,1) is allowed. The inputs establish a pattern of which gates are
locked and which are not. This pattern in turn determines which
side of each balance is free to move. The clock input then actuates
the balances, with the end result being that either bottom output
2311, representing (A NAND B)0, will move, or top output 2312,
representing (A NAND B)1, will move. The resulting output generates
the NAND truth table:
TABLE-US-00001 Inputs Outputs A1 A0 B1 B0 (A NAND B)1 (A NAND B)0 0
1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
As has already been mentioned, NAND is a universal gate. Therefore,
it follows from this example that a system of locks and balances
could be used to design any other desired logic gates, reversible
or irreversible, using combinations of NAND gates. However, this
may not be the most efficient way to implement any desired logic,
and similar lock and balance-based mechanisms can be used to
implement any other logic gate directly, including AND, OR, NOR,
XOR, XNOR, NOT, CNOT, Toffoli and others.
One implementation of a Fredkin Gate was already described. Locks
and balances can also be used to build a Fredkin gate. A Fredkin
gate has three inputs and three outputs. The three inputs will be
called A, B, and C, and the three outputs X, Y, and Z. Input A
always connects to Output X. If Input A is 0, then Input B connects
to Output Y and Input C connects to Output Z. If Input A is 1, then
Input B connects to Output Z and Input C connects to Output Y. As
previously noted, Fredkin gates are universal gates, meaning that
any logical or arithmetic operation can be computed with only
Fredkin gates. This is not to say that a practical MLL computing
system need be composed solely of Fredkin gates, as this would not
necessarily be the most efficient configuration for many computing
tasks. As will be obvious from the teachings herein, many other
types of gates can be implemented using MLL. Fredkin gates are used
as one exemplary embodiment because they are both universal and
reversible.
FIG. 24 depicts a Fredkin gate made using locks and balances. Due
to the complexity of the mechanism, a simplified notation is used
where anchored rotary joints are not explicitly shown, but assumed
to be on the unconnected ends of appropriate links. The clock input
or signal (actuator not shown, as with all inputs to this
mechanism) would be attached to rotary joint 2401. Input for A1,
A0, B1, B0, C1 and C0 input would be attached to rotary joints
2402, 2403, 2404, 2405, 2406 and 2407, respectively. B1, B0, C1 and
C0 inputs would also be connected to rotary joints 2408, 2409, 2410
and 2411, respectively. The clock signal and inputs are connected
via a series of links and locks, and for some outputs, balances, to
X1 output 2412, X0 output 2413, Y1 output 2414, Y0 output 2415, Z1
output 2416 and Z0 output 2417. Note that the X1 and X0 outputs are
not shown on the right side next to the other outputs to reduce
figure complexity. In reality, obviously they could be routed to
any location desired. Note that links 2418 and 2419 are part of
4-bar linkages, not balances, constraining these links to stay
vertical when moving. Black triangles 2420 and 2421 exemplify rigid
linkages (a straight line is not used to avoid a representation
with excessive lines which cross each other, and this
representation is only diagrammatic; the actual mechanisms could be
implemented in many ways).
The blank state is depicted in FIG. 24. Conceptually, from this
state, the A, B, and C inputs are set during one clock phase.
During a subsequent clock phase, the clock signal connected to
rotary joint 2401 is set to "1," which causes the movement of the
various balances within the mechanism, resulting in the X, Y and Z
outputs being set as appropriate. While one straightforward
approach to building a system would be to use Fredkin gates
throughout, and to use three-phase Landauer Clocking, other
approaches are feasible. As will be obvious from the various
well-known clocking schemes, there may be additional clock phases,
and using Bennet Clocking, the number of clock signals will depend
on the number of steps one desires to allow in a retractile
cascade.
Shift Registers
Shift registers can be used as a foundation for implementing
sequential logic in a computational system. For example, two
numbers to be added, subtracted, ANDed or ORed are stored in two
shift registers and clocked out into an arithmetic and logic unit
consisting of a handful of gates, with the result being sent to the
input of a third shift register called the accumulator. In
reversible digital circuits, a shift register can be defined as a
series of "cells," each cell having three stable states: 0, 1 and
blank (b), which can be used to store state information. The cells
are clocked by successive clocks. The output of each cell is
connected to the input of the next cell in the chain. The data
stored in the chain is shifted by one position after each clock
cycle; data (0,1, or b) at the input is shifted in while data at
the end of the array is shifted out. Binary clocked shift registers
can be implemented using only the clocks and the rotary joints
connected by links (creating locks and balances) previously
described. Shift registers are simple, yet when combined with the
appropriate combinatorial logic, contain all the fundamental
elements required for a computational system.
A shift register can be built by combining locks and balances, and
assuming the presence of a clock system, so that each cell (which
might be viewed as a flip-flop, and which may also be thought of as
a buffer and can be used to synchronize clock phases of different
processes by introducing clock phase delays) of the shift register
is related to its neighbor by virtue of relying upon a preceding or
succeeding clock phase, as appropriate. This enables the copying
and shifting of data through the shift register, rather than
deterministically setting the contents of the entire shift register
simultaneously.
FIG. 25, FIG. 26 and FIG. 27 depicts a single cell of a shift
register, in three different states. In these figures, the 0 input
2501 is connected via a rotary joint to one side of lock 2505. The
1 input 2502 is connect via a rotary joint to one side of lock
2506. Clock signal 2503 (although diagrammed differently to provide
a mechanism that is more complete when standing alone, this would,
in an actual system, be a connection to the clock system), is
attached to balance 2504. Locks 2505 and 2506 determine which of
the outputs 2507 or 2508 move when the clock signal becomes 1. The
lock which contains outputs 2507 and 2588 can be thought of as the
output lock for the overall cell, while locks 2505 and 2506 are
holding area locks. The importance of this concept will become
clear when connecting multiple cells in series.
FIG. 25 depicts the cell in its blank state, before any input has
been provided, and while the clock signal is low or 0. FIG. 26
depicts the cell after input 2501 has been set to 1, but before the
clock signal has moved to high or 1. This results in the locking of
lock 2505.
FIG. 27 depicts the mechanism from the previous state once the
clock signal has moved to high. As clock signal 2503 pushes on
balance 2504, because lock 2505 is locked, only one side of balance
2504 is free to move. Thus, the clock signal moving to high is
transmitted through lock 2506 and to output 2508. Note that the
movements between states such as those illustrated in FIG. 25, FIG.
26 and FIG. 27 do not take place simultaneously but rather are
governed by clock signals and data inputs (which themselves may be
tied to clock signals). This sequential behavior is what allows the
proper functioning of this cell or buffer (also analogous to a
latch in electronic computing). Such behavior is easy to realize
and well-known in electrical implementations, but more involved in
a mechanical implementation.
FIG. 28a, comprising the left half, and FIG. 28b, comprising the
right half, collectively depicts a two cell shift register to
illustrate how two cells would be connected and to explain how data
would move from one cell to the next. In FIG. 28a, cell 1 2801, and
in FIG. 28b, cell 2 2802, are each equivalent to the mechanism
depicted in FIG. 25. In FIG. 28a, cell 1 2801 has a connection to a
clock signal via link 2803 (depicted as a partial link to indicate
connection to a clock system that is not shown), and in FIG. 28b,
cell 2 2802 has a connection to a clock signal via link 2806. Links
2804 and 2805 connect the cell 1 2801 and cell 2 2802.
Like in FIG. 25, FIG. 26 and FIG. 27, a multi-phase clock signal is
assumed to be present, and links 2803 and 2806, and the data inputs
associated with each cell would preferably all operate on different
clock phases, requiring at least a three-phase clock for this
particular design. The operation of a single cell has already been
described, but demonstrating how cell 1 2801 passes data to cell 2
2802 may be instructive. The sequence of events is as follows: (1)
on clock phase 1, the clock for cell 1 2801 was already at 0, and
the data inputs are set for cell 1 2801. Either the upper or lower
lock of cell 1 2801 locks, depending on which input was set to 1;
(2) on clock phase 2, the clock signal for cell 1 2801 is set to 1.
This results in the unlocked side of the balance present in cell 1
2801 moving, which in turn moves either link 2804 or link 2805.
This locks one of cell 2's 2802 holding area locks, copying the
data from cell 1 2801 into cell 2's 2802 holding area. Note that
the output lock of cell 2 2802 still has not moved; (3) on clock
phase 3, the clock signal for cell 2 2802 is set to 1. This copies
the data from the holding area locks into cell 2's 2802 output
lock. In detail, one of cell 2's 2802 holding area locks was
already locked, so when the clock signal for cell 2 2802 changes
from 0 to 1, only the unlocked line could move. When this unlocked
line moved, it locked cell 2's 2802 output lock. It also locked the
second of cell 2's 2802 two holding area locks; and (4) the clock
signal for cell 1 is set to 0. This unwrites cell 1's 2801 data
from cell 2 2802 by unlocking only the cell 2 2802 holding area
lock that was originally locked when cell 1's 2801 clock was set to
1, as the other lock was just locked by the clock signal to cell 2
2802. This cycle then repeats itself as new data is input into cell
1. In step 2 above, it is noted that the output lock of cell 2 2802
still has not moved. This allows these exemplary shift register
cells to store previous data, whereas mechanisms such as some of
the logic gates described herein have their state completely
determined by the current data inputs. This is because a cell can
contain not only a previous input (which ends up being shifted to
its output lock during clock phase 3), but also the current input,
which is stored in the holding area locks.
It will be apparent from this description that if reversibility at
the shift register cell (or other mechanism) level is desired, all
that need be done is to run the clock phases in the opposite order.
If a retractile cascade is desired, then a scheme like Bennett
clocking can be used, coupled with the appropriate hardware design
(e.g., the ability to store "junk" bits so that no information is
lost, allowing the computation to be reversible to as many levels
deep as desired). In the current example, the shift register being
only 2 cells long, only 2 numbers can be stored. In an actual
system, such a shift register can be arbitrarily long. Further,
while this particular implementation is a serial-in/serial-out
design, it will be obvious given this example that MLL can be used
to make any other type of shift register desired, such as
parallel-in/parallel-out, serial-in/parallel-out, and others.
Momentum Cancellation
It can be useful to perform computation without altering either the
center of mass or the moment of inertia of a group of computing
structures, so that the forces that these changes would cause are
not coupled to the overall system, potentially contributing to
energy dissipation. This can be accomplished by using sets of
structures whose movements cancel out changes in the center of mass
or the torque around any axis (a "canceling group"). Such
techniques can apply to any structure, such as links, lines, locks,
logic gates, balances, clocks, and larger aggregate structures. For
example, consider a link or line which is used to transmit data
from one place to another. Such a structure may be replaced with
four parallel structures, conceptually grouped as two pairs. Each
member of a pair moves in the opposite direction, canceling changes
in the center of mass and linear momentum. However, each pair could
still create torque. So, the direction of movement of each link is
reversed from the first pair to the second pair, resulting in
torque cancellation. Given this type of arrangement, no net force
is coupled to the overall device and so such canceling groups can
be used to transmit data while reducing energy coupled into the
rest of the structure.
FIG. 29 illustrates this concept using groups 2901 and 2902, each
containing two members, 2903 and 2904, and 2905 and 2906,
respectively. Within a group, each member moves in the opposite
direction from the other member (while each member is not connected
to the others in the diagram, in an actual system movements would
be synchronized, e.g., by clock signals). For example, as depicted,
member 2903 has moved to the right, while member 2904 has moved to
the left. The accelerations that take place during these movements
will generate forces on the underlying support structure (the
anchor block, not shown). Since members 2903 and 2904 accelerate in
opposite directions, the linear components of their momentum will
cancel. However, in this arrangement they will still generate a net
torque on the anchor block. Adding the second pair of members 2902
containing members 2905 and 2906, which also move in opposite
directions within the pair, but generate a torque that is opposite
the torque of group 2901, allows complete cancellation.
Obviously, many other designs could be used to either cancel
momentum, or reduce the need to do so in the first place (e.g., by
reducing mass, or reducing the radii to centers of rotations).
Given this, momentum cancellation is not limited to any particular
arrangement. Nor are cancelling groups limited to some specific
number of members. Even odd numbers could be used, such as where
the members of a canceling group do not have the same masses or
momentum. For example, two members could be used to cancel one
other member that generates twice the momentum. And, momentum
cancellation need not be complete. Additionally, forces along any
axis may be addressed similarly. For example, in actual designs,
forces which cause torque along the Z axis, which is defined for
this example as perpendicular to the figure plane, may also need to
be cancelled. The complexity and increased mass of complete
cancellation may outweigh the benefits, and the appropriate amount
of cancellation (if any), and which force components to cancel, if
any, will vary on a case by case basis.
Clocks
In an MLL system, a clock system synchronizes the mechanisms, and
also provides force to drive the mechanisms. It is well-known in
the field of computer science that computational systems with
different numbers of clock signals (or phases) can be used. At
least 2 phases are required, but 3 phases can be advantageous, and
higher numbers can also be used. An MLL clock system could consist
of one or more clocks which create a plurality of clock signals.
These signals could take the form of reciprocating motion
transmitted through the mechanisms, such as via lines, or the use
of rigid frames (which are actually just links of specialized
shape, for example, a rigid frame could connect to a clock at a
single location, and then branch out, potentially in multiple
directions or dimensions) to connect to many gates or other
mechanisms), supported by support links as necessary. The optimal
number of mechanisms connected to a single clock or clock signal
will be implementation-specific, depending on factors like the mass
which is being driven, the rigidity of the system, and the
switching speed. Alternatively, clock signals could be generated by
multiple local clocks, such as oscillators or rotating masses, with
communication between the clocks as required to keep them
synchronized.
Clock signals could be generated in a variety of ways. For example,
rotating masses, harmonic oscillators, or cams and cam followers
could all be used, creating periodic motion in links where, for
example, one position may represent "0" and another position may
represent "1". A rotating mass, which is essentially a flywheel,
can serve as a simple oscillator. Flywheels, coupled to links by
rotary joints, could be used to drive each clock signal back and
forth and require no parts beyond links and rotary joints. A
flywheel could be kept in constant motion by some sort of energy
source or motor, which replenishes the energy lost to dissipative
mechanisms in the system. A discussion of exactly how such an
energy source or motor might be implemented is beyond the bounds of
the invention. It is obvious from the literature, which contains
substantial work on both macro-scale motors, and molecular-scale
motors, including bio-motors (e.g., ATPases, flagella) and
synthetic motors, that there are many ways to implement such
motors, and many ways to power such motors, including chemical,
light, direct current, and external electrical fields.
Other designs for clocks introduce parts beyond links and rotary
joints, and so do not technically fall under the definition of MLL.
However, as the use of alternate clocking systems connected to an
MLL system may have utility, it is described how such alternate
clock implementations can be designed for minimal energy
dissipation. Further, since a single clock can drive many logic
elements, even if the clock itself were to be somewhat dissipative,
overall, computation could still be quite efficient.
One alternate clocking system would be to use simple harmonic
oscillators, preferably with a high Q factor. The use of simple
harmonic oscillators has the advantage that a single clocking
frequency would be used, and that the clocking frequency would be
provided by a very simple mechanism. Using such an oscillator,
components would preferably be designed to use sine-like clock
signals (including signals with sine-like transitions between 0 and
1 with flat areas in between for timing purposes), and designed in
such a way that they did not generate significantly higher
frequency overtones during operation (as, for example, if one
moving part collided with another moving part). Alternatively, a
sum of simple oscillators could be used, the sum approximating the
desired clock signal. The use of a sufficient number of oscillators
could, in principle, approximate the desired clock signal as
accurately as desired, at the expense of additional parts. One way
to implement a harmonic oscillator is with a spring (in which is
included a flexure or other structures of similar purpose), which
could be made of any material with the appropriate properties and
spring constant, including the same materials as the links.
Cams and cam followers are another way to generate a clock signal.
A cam and cam follower can be used to generate a very smooth clock
signal, as is subsequently described. A cam can also be used to
generate a clock signal with an essentially arbitrary waveform. A
cam could be made, for example, from a rotating link supported by
rotary joints at either end. The link thus forms an axle which can
be used as a camshaft. The cam would be affixed to the camshaft (or
the camshaft could actually be the cam, assuming it has the
appropriate cross-sectional shape). A cam follower could be
constructed, for example, using a wheel connected to two rotary
joints, connected to a lever arm. Rotating the camshaft would
rotate the cam. The cam follower wheel would ride up and down on
the cam, causing the lever arm to go up and down along with it. The
lever arm would be a link in a suitable linkage. Many other
geometries and relative positions for the cam and cam follower
could be used, including designs where the cam follower surrounds
the cam, or vice versa, such as with an eccentric rotor and stator,
as well as variations in the types of motion the cam makes, such as
designs where the cam simply rocks back and forth, or moves in a
manner that is itself under programmatic control, as well as
combinations of the foregoing and obvious variations.
While it may not be obvious how smooth curves can be made at the
molecular level, since angles and distances are quantized by the
nature of chemical bonds, this issue can be overcome. For example,
in diamond, buried Lomer dislocations could be used to create
smooth curves on the surface of a Lonsdaleite (hexagonal diamond)
cam. Similarly-gradual changes could be accomplished with diamond
and other materials, by using changes in bonding patterns, the
incorporation of elements of varying atomic radii, using strain to
slightly displace an atom or atoms, or using naturally curved
structures such a nanotubes. Using these strategies, a molecular
implementation of cam and cam followers (and indeed, any pieces of
such a system) could be made to almost arbitrarily precise
tolerances, even to distances below a single atomic diameter.
Using a rotating mass to generate clock signals requires only
rotary joints and links, the basic parts of MLL systems. If a cam
and cam follower were used, the rotary joints connecting the cam
follower's lever arm to the wheel, and those which allow the cam to
rotate, have again, already been discussed. However, in a cam-based
system, there is rotating contact between the cam and cam follower
wheel surfaces, a situation not present when considering the basic
parts of MLL. While this may seem like a mechanism that creates
undesirable sliding friction, it need not be. The two surfaces do
not have to slide over each other, but rather rotate synchronously.
Analysis indicates that, especially given a molecular-scale,
atomically-precise (or nearly so) implementation, the energy
dissipation from such a mechanism would be very low.
In such a molecular-scale mechanism, the very slight distortion in
the shape of the wheel and the very slight variation in attractive
force (van der Waals) between the surface and the wheel could cause
very slight phonon generation. Viewed in the frame of reference of
the cam follower, the wheel and surface would be static other than
the very high frequency shifting of the crystal structures within
them. As a consequence, there should be no generation of low
frequency phonons. And, inertia and positional uncertainties caused
by thermal noise will prevent the mechanism from being able to
reproduce the highest frequency components in the signal on the
cam, even in the absence of a low pass filter on the output (which
could be used if desired, and could be implemented, e.g., as a
simple spring and mass device).
Also, various cancelation methods could be used to minimize the
high frequency signal component that is encoded on the cam's
surface. This might be done, for example, by using a plurality of
cam follower wheels that read a plurality of tracks on the cam
surface, each track being staggered by some distance. Attaching
each cam follower wheel to the cam follower would then effectively
sum or average their outputs, canceling at least some of the high
frequency noise signal. Any number of tracks and cam follower
wheels could be used, with any desired shape for each track (e.g.,
different canceling signals could be encoded in each track),
resulting in arbitrary accuracy of the aggregate signal. Another
method to reduce high frequency noise would be to rotate the
crystal axis of the material from which the cam is made, and
perform a corresponding rotation of the crystal structure of the
wheel which is meshing with them. By choosing the crystal rotation
and width of the cam and cam follower appropriately, other high
frequency signals may be eliminated due to the change in timing and
atomic spacing as the cam contacts the cam follower wheel. Yet
another method of reducing the transmission of high frequency
signals is to reduce the stiffness of the coupling of the cam and
cam follower to the rest of the system. For example, reducing the
spring constant of the cam follower arm, or reducing the stiffness
of the bonds on which the cam follower is mounted, would help
filter high frequency signals.
Given these examples, it will be obvious that these are not the
only ways to reduce high frequency components. There are many ways
to ensure that parts in rotating contact do not create or transmit
high frequency signals, and the use of atomically-precise parts in
particular allows the minimization of such signals. As the cam
follower rises and falls on the curved cam surface, following the
clock signal encoded in that surface, it will subject the cam
surface to inertial forces. Each acceleration or deceleration of
the cam follower will create a corresponding force on the surface
of the cam. These periodic forces will create phonons at the clock
frequency. This source of energy dissipation can be canceled if two
cam followers follow two cams, the two cams encoding equal but
opposite signals. And, since the clock frequency is arbitrary, this
frequency can be reduced until energy dissipation caused by
coupling of the high frequency components of the clock signal to
mechanical vibrational modes is under desired levels. Note that the
cam follower mechanism described can exert a relatively strong
force when the cam is pushing on the cam follower. However, during
movement in the opposite direction, the force is limited by the van
der Waals force between the cam and the wheel. This can be
rectified, if need be, for example, by using two cam followers and
two cams (with the encoded signals appropriately rotated with
respect to each other), where the cam followers are on opposite
sides of their respective cams. The first cam follower can exert a
strong force in one direction, while the second cam follower can
exert a strong force in the opposite direction.
Exemplary Switching Time Analysis
The basic constitutive equations of simple Newtonian motion and
assumptions about the size and physical strength of links can be
applied to an analysis of the switching time, mass, force, and
resonant frequency for a molecular scale implementation of MLL
mechanisms. To provide a concrete example, several assumptions must
be made, all of which could vary greatly depending on the exact
implementation, but the exact performance of a given system is not
the point, rather, the goal is to calculate an estimate of one
possible operating speed of an exemplary molecular-sized system.
Links are assumed to be .about.20 nm in length and about 0.5 nm to
0.7 nm in diameter. Links are assumed to be made of diamond or
similar material, and to be braced to increase their stiffness
(e.g., a beam with triangular bracing, rather than just a straight
beam). The positional difference between "0" and "1" is assumed to
be .about.2 nm. Rotary joints are assumed to be like those shown in
FIG. 1, and the system is assumed to be operating a room
temperature. These assumptions allow the calculation of link and
rotary joint stiffness. To determine the resonant frequency, mass
must be determined.
The mass of a typical mechanism can vary widely. Even using a given
type of link, the mass will be quite different depending on whether
the mechanism is a single 4 bar link, a lock, a balance, a logic
gate, etc., and on the exact implementations of such structures. To
use round figures, the moving mass of a link might be about
8.times.10.sup.-23 kg, while the moving mass of a mechanism made of
several links might be on the order of 10.sup.-21 kg. Using these
assumptions, the resonant frequency for an exemplary
molecular-scale mechanism may be around 13 GHz. A square wave clock
signal would lead to substantially higher than necessary energy
dissipation. Therefore, it is assumed that the clock waveform is
generated as a sinusoidal wave, convolved with a Gaussian to reduce
undesirable high frequency components, or optimized using standard
linear systems theory to minimize the generation of undesired
resonances. In addition, to be conservative, the clock can be
operated at a frequency well below the 13 GHz resonant frequency
calculated. Depending on various assumptions, such as just how much
energy dissipation is acceptable, and with how much margin for
error, this results in switching times in the 1 ns to 10 ns range.
Obviously, this is only exemplary. Larger structures would likely
operate at slower speeds, while smaller structures, stiffer
structures, designs which move shorter distances between "0" and
"1", lower operating temperatures, or relaxation of some of the
conservative design parameters assumed, would result in faster
switching times.
MLL Summary
MLL has been shown to be able to create mechanisms including lines,
logic gates, locks, balances, switch gates and shift registers,
using only rotary joints and links. MLL provides for any
combinatorial logic by using various combinations of logic gates
which, either alone (e.g., NAND or Fredkin gates) or in aggregate,
are universal. Sequential logic, and therefore memory, can be
provided by flip-flops or cells, which can be combined into shift
registers.
Given the availability of both combinatorial logic and sequential
logic, it will be obvious that a complete computational system can
be built using MLL. For example, the Von Neumann architecture, a
well-known Turing-complete architecture, requires three main
components: A control unit, an arithmetic logic unit, and memory.
Using combinatorial logic and flip-flops, a finite state machine
can be created which can be used as a control unit. Combinatorial
logic can be used to create an arithmetic logic unit. And,
flip-flops can be used to create memory. This is all that is needed
for a complete computational system. Of course, such a system does
not need to be based on the Von Neumann architecture; this is
simply an example to illustrate the fact that all the necessary
components of a Turing-complete system can be provided using MLL.
Depending on the exact mechanisms used, and the clocking scheme
employed, an MLL-based computational system can be irreversible,
reversible, or some combination thereof. The ability to create
mechanical computing mechanisms, and complete computational
systems, using only links and rotary joints can provide advantages
which include reduced friction (and therefore power consumption and
waste heat generation), device design and manufacture
simplification, and device robustness (e.g., operation at more
extreme temperatures than permitted by many other known
computational systems, given that mechanical logic could function
up to near the melting point of its constituent parts, whereas,
electronic computing suffers from bandgap issues at extreme
temperatures).
Mechanical Flexure Logic
Flexures can take the place of the rotary joints used in MLL,
resulting in Mechanical Flexure Logic ("MFL"). With the
substitution of flexures for rotary joints, all MLL mechanisms have
analogous MFL mechanisms. For example, FIG. 30 shows the MFL
version of the MLL lock depicted in FIG. 7. Link ends 3001 and 3002
of links 3003 and 3004, respectively, are one place where input
mechanisms could be connected. Anchored link ends 3007 and 3008 of
links 3003 and 3004, act in a manner analogous to anchored rotary
joints. Note that there are no actual rotary joints present in the
MFL version of a lock. Rather, flexures, exemplified by the
semi-circular cutouts 3005 and 3006, provide bendable points
between various parts of the structure. These flexures allow force,
which may be input at link ends 3001 or 3002, to be transmitted
through triangular links 3010 or 3011, respectively, and on to link
ends 3012 or 3013 (which may be thought of as outputs),
respectively. Link 3009 serves the same purpose as link 709 in the
co-planar MLL lock of FIG. 7. The entire mechanism of FIG. 30 can
be made (although it need not be) from a single piece of material,
where the different links are monolithic, but logically separable
because they are bounded by flexures.
Overall, the movement and function of the MFL and MLL locks is
completely analogous, but changes in the relative angle between
links in MFL are facilitated by flexures instead of rotary joints.
While locks are used to demonstrate the analogy between MFL and
MLL, it will be apparent that the same analogies can be made
between any mechanisms, and therefore by replacing rotary joints
with flexures, a Turing-complete system can be made using MFL. Of
course, flexures require suitable materials, which may differ from
that of links, and the geometry of flexures need not be only that
depicted in FIG. 30. Flexures are well-known in the mechanical
arts, and suitable designs and materials could be adapted for
almost any degree of motion, size, operating temperature, or other
parameters.
Mechanical Cable Logic
Another method of implementing computing mechanisms and systems
which are analogous to MLL (and hence also to MFL) is to replace
links and rotary joints with cables, pulleys, and knobs. This
design paradigm will be referred to as Mechanical Cable Logic
("MCL"). With respect to the basic parts, or primitives, MCL cables
are analogous to MLL links, and MCL pulleys are analogous to MLL
rotary joints. Knobs are an additional primitive that do not have a
direct counterpart in MLL or MFL. Knobs are used to aid in the
interaction of cables, for example, to create locks, and in that
respect, aid in the building of mechanisms with analogous logical
functions, even if the part itself does not have a direct analog.
It will be obvious given the teachings herein, that by applying
force to a cable, movement can be transmitted down the cable and to
other mechanisms as desired (hence their analogy to links).
Similarly, it will be apparent that pulleys can be used to, among
other purposes, allow bends in cables so that movement can be
routed in any direction desired (hence their analogy to rotary
joints).
The MCL primitives can be used to create, among other structures,
balances and locks. While MCL implementations of balances and locks
may look different than their MLL counterparts, viewed from a
"black box" perspective, MCL balances and locks can be implemented
so as to be logically equivalent to the respective mechanisms in
MLL. Given this, MCL also provides for Turing-complete systems.
Tracks and Channels
Like MLL rotary joints, MCL pulleys can be anchored or unanchored.
However, in MLL links are rigid and this aids in constraining the
movement of unanchored rotary joints. In MCL, cables are not rigid,
so the proper geometric constraints need to be provided in a
different manner. One way to do this would be to keep tension on
the appropriate cables (e.g., clock cables) so that pulleys
connected to such lines cannot move unless, in this example, the
clock lines move, in which case pulley movement is constrained to
the path the clock cables define. Another way of addressing this
issue would be to mount pulleys on links where such constraint was
necessary (although another primitive is then required, and since
this blurs the distinction between MLL and MCL, such an embodiment
is not addressed further). Yet another way is the use of channels,
tracks, or other guiding means on the anchor block. By virtue of
being affixed in a sliding manner to the guiding means, the motion
of unanchored pulleys are appropriately constrained.
FIG. 31 and FIG. 32 show a top view and side view, respectively, of
a pulley which can slide in a channel. Anchor block 3101 contains
channel 3104. Pulley 3102 is monolithic with, or connected to (in a
fixed or rotary manner) axle 3103. Axle 3103 connects itself and
pulley 3102 to channel 3104 in a slidable manner. Actuating cable
3105 is affixed to axle 3103 and enables the movement of the pulley
in the channel (e.g., actuate using a clock line). Note that this
is but one way of actuating and guiding pulley movement, and of
affixing a pulley to a track, channel, or other guiding means. Many
other designs would be obvious, such a pulley with an axle
extending through the anchor block with an expanded lower part
protruding so that it cannot come out of the channel, a beveled
channel and axle (e.g., similar to a dovetail joint in profile)
which could accomplish the same goal, or the addition of another
axle structure on top of the pulley, along with an another anchor
block, pinning the pulley between the two.
Another way of providing guiding means would be rails mounted on
the anchor block, the pulley being affixed to the rails in any one
of many known means, The point is not the exact mechanical
implementation, but rather to provide some guiding means,
preferably with low friction, in light of the flexibility of
cables; any of many well-known guiding means could be used.
Understanding now how pulley motion can be constrained without the
need for links, the analogies between MLL, MFL, and MCL become
easier to describe. Since it has already been shown that, in MLL,
locks and balances suffice (although they are not the only way) to
create Turing-complete systems, it follows that if analogous
mechanisms exist in MCL, MCL is also capable of being used to
create Turing-complete systems. It has already been stated that,
with respect to the basic primitives, MLL links can be likened to
MCL cables, and MLL rotary joints can be likened to MCL pulleys. To
prove this, and show exactly how cables and pulleys can be used to
create the underlying mechanisms of Turing-complete computing, the
design of a lock and a balance is described.
MCL Locks
Locks can be created in MCL using knobs that are integral with, or
affixed to, cables or other structures. With the appropriate
design, these knobs allow the reproduction of the features of an
MLL lock. Specifically, with respect to a binary embodiment with
two inputs, from the (0,0) unlocked state, there are two allowable
movements, those being from the (0,0) unlocked state to one of the
locked states, (0,1) or (1,0). From either of the locked states,
the only allowable movement is back to the unlocked state. Note
that there is no reason that knobs cannot be attached to virtually
any structure, as convenient, and the construction of locks are not
the only use of knobs.
One way to implement the desired logic is depicted in FIG. 33a-c.
In FIG. 33a, a first cable 3301 is crossed by a second cable 3302.
Two knobs 3303 and 3304, and 3305 and 3306, respectively, are
affixed to each cable. FIG. 33a shows the lock in the (0,0)
position, where either cable is free to move. FIG. 33b shows the
lock in the (0,1) position, the second cable having moved, thus
locking the first cable by virtue of the fact that one of the
second cable's knobs 3305 is between the first cable's knobs 3303
and 3304, preventing their movement in either direction. FIG. 33c
shows the lock in the (1,0) position, the first cable having moved,
thus locking second cable.
Many other designs are possible which allow knobs to act as locks.
FIG. 34, FIG. 35, FIG. 36, and FIG. 37 depict an exemplary knob
design which can also enforce the constraint that the only allowed
movement in a lock from the (0,1) or (1,0) state is to (0,0). This
knob design is more complex, but requires only two knobs (one on
each cable) instead of four, to create the desired lock logic.
FIG. 34 shows a single knob 3401. Generally a cable would be
attached to either end (not shown), but such knobs could be used in
other scenarios as well, such as connected to MLL links.
FIG. 35 shows how two such knobs 3501 and 350
References